March 7, 2019

"At some point during the winter break last month, someone covered the playground of a public school in the Rego Park section of Queens with swastikas and other anti-Semitic sentiments."

"Either poor spellers or unfamiliar with the exact phrasing of the Nazi salute, whoever was responsible inscribed the words 'Hail Hiter' on the ground in chalk. Several days later, two boys were arrested and charged with aggravated harassment. They came from the neighborhood, one that has long been predominantly white and Jewish but grown more diverse in recent years with an influx of Asian immigrants.... In this case the face of hate was the face of two children of color — one black, the other Asian — who were 12 years old.... [Maybe] they learned that it is perfectly fine to express a mischievous, rebellious or playful side through the use of such cruel and divisive imagery. This generation of children has grown up with constant screen time, inundated with an endless stream of images that eventually renders many of those visual signifiers meaningless, where Nazi symbolism is just processed as more cartoonish provocation.... We do not know whether the two boys arrested in Queens understood the weight of their actions, whether what they were doing was an act born of loathing or stupidity.  In big cities where neighborhood demographics are so often changing and gentrification is often compelling those changes, a truly holistic approach to preventing acts of racial and ethnic bias.... would be proactive rather than responsive. The police would keep from reflexively criminalizing ignorance."

From "Two 12-Year-Olds Drew Swastikas on a Playground. Is That a Hate Crime?" (NYT).

78 comments:

Anne in Rockwall, TX said...

Is it a hate crime? Against Jews? Nope. Not in the dem/media/entertainment world.

Fernandinande said...

Of course it's not a "hate crime".

Here's the hilarious propaganda from NYPD: "The NYPD’s Hate Crimes Task Force now have the suspect—a 12 year old male—in custody. Great job @NYPDHateCrimes No matter the face of hate, the NYPD, partnered with the community, has ZERO tolerance."

"Hate Crime Hoax: How the Left Is Selling a Fake Race War"

JackWayne said...

Might as well ask if hate can really be a crime. Does anyone really trust the government or any entity to determine what someone was thinking?

Lucid-Ideas said...

The 'crisis' is the crisis. What do I mean? If everything is a hate crime than nothing is. It is used far far too often and is used to describe things that don't fit and are even border-line petty.

Furthermore, I have never been able to accept 100% that there is even such a thing as a 'hate crime'. There is crime, and there is not crime. I have always felt that attributing the motivation to prosecution is essentially designating 'thought crime' and 'political crime' which sets an extremely poor precedent.

Fernandinande said...

Almost forgot to write "deeply shocking".

Sebastian said...

So a hate crime that is not even a hoax? Sad!

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Totally consistent with Democratic Party values.

Rick said...

“Do you remember the song from ‘South Pacific,’ ‘you have to be taught to hate?’” asked Toby Ann Stavisky, a state senator representing the relevant district in Queens. “These children were taught to hate, and I’d be very interested to learn where they learned to hate.”

Or perhaps we might also wonder if and where they learned that it is perfectly fine to express a mischievous, rebellious or playful side through the use of such cruel and divisive imagery. This generation of children has grown up with constant screen time, inundated with an endless stream of images that eventually renders many of those visual signifiers meaningless, where Nazi symbolism is just processed as more cartoonish provocation.


Here is the left-media's operational directive in action: continually hypothesize until your conclusions match your political preference. If the perps are MAGA hat wearers stop at "where did this hate come from". If they are identifiably leftist condider other possibilities.

Tommy Duncan said...

50 to 60 years ago this would have warranted an explanation of who Hitler was, why the swastika is a symbol of evil, and why you shouldn't do this. Now go along and play.

Masscon said...

I am certain that if these two boys were of white European descent the NYT would find excellent reasons why it wasn't really a hate crime

Paul Zrimsek said...

Heinrich Bimmler and Ron Vibbentrop were unavailable for comment.

RK said...

A few things are surprising. First, a black and Asian kid hanging out together in real life. Second, an Asian kid who can't spell. Third, since it's well-known that this sort of thing gets adults' panties in a twist, you'd think kids would be doing it much more often.

rehajm said...

It's the hate crime if the kids don't support the Green New Deal.

stevew said...

"[Maybe] they learned that it is perfectly fine to express a mischievous, rebellious or playful side through the use of such cruel and divisive imagery."

[Maybe] they're just ignorant, 12-year old shits that had no idea that what they were doing was so "cruel and divisive". I'm willing to bet they thought it was funny. Doesn't "ignorant little shit" describe the behavior of most 12-year old boys, at least some of the time?

RK said...

"playful side through the use of such cruel and divisive imagery"

After the last Holocaust survivor has died of old age, is it still "cruel"?

William said...

This is what happens when the seven forbidden words become mainstream. Children need to shock adults. The forbidden words have migrated from sex to ethnicity. You think George Carlin would have the nerve to say the forbidden ethnic slurs?

The Cracker Emcee Refulgent said...

Doesn't "ignorant little shit" describe the behavior of most 12-year old boys, at least some of the time?

Oh, yeah. In third grade I practiced stylized swastikas on my Pee Chee. Curiously, no one accused me of being a Nazi. Fortunately, no evidence survives.

traditionalguy said...

If they are under 18, then it's not a crime. It's a delinquent Act. The Dems could absolutely impeach Trump for it if these were his kids, or the friends of his kids, or they lived close to his kids, or they wore that Bad Red MAGA Cap which is the worse act imaginable.

bagoh20 said...

Come on! All that breathless reasoning is bullshit for why they did it. Have these thinkers ever been actual fun-loving kids or were they poindexters their entire lives? The kids did it precisely becuase they knew it would upset the uptight humorless adults in their community. As a kid, that's the motivation for 50% of everything you do. You have lots of time, few responsibilities, and creating a little drama in the village has always been a thrill. Kids don't have all your political baggage yet, until you strap on them.

rcocean said...

Is the NYT supposed to be a national/international newspaper of some importance? Why is this playground story about two 12 year-old's worth publishing?

Sally327 said...

I'm guessing the way these culprits are described is code for Muslim?

According to the article, "...the school where the defacements occurred will conduct a read-aloud of “A Picture Book of Anne Frank,’’ and have students create stenciled murals “around positive messages about diversity and inclusiveness, including around religion,” according to the city’s Department of Education."

Oh, yes, the story of Anne Frank, I doubt that's going to resonate with a bunch of school kids in the 21st century. Surely there must be something more contemporary that could be used. And interesting that the stencil messages will include "religion" so I'm wondering if this another example of how no message of hate towards Jews can be condemned unless we include a lesson about the evils of Islamophobia.

rcocean said...

Here's something I remember from being a 12 y/o. "Sticks and stones may break your bones but names will never hurt you".

Today, in 2018, it seems to be "Names and swas-stickers are the most important thing ever. And whenever possible cry as loud as possible and play the victim. There's no downside".

bagoh20 said...

" The forbidden words have migrated from sex to ethnicity."

Exactly, This racist crap is now the naughty words for this generation due to their new puritan overlords, who are more uptight than the ones who went before, and even more fond of a good witch hunt.

Temujin said...

"one black, the other asian"

When you read about violent attacks in Europe that turn out to be done by a Muslim, you often see the use of the term 'Asian' used instead of Muslim. Not saying they're trying to hide anything at the NY Times. But 'Asian' could mean anyone that's not from North America, Eastern or Western Europe, Africa or Australia. Say- Pakistan, Indonesia.

I know...Islamaphobic. These might just be kids doing kids stuff to get a rise out of adults. Kids who knew just what would get a rise out of these particular adults. Or...they might just be getting taught by people who think like Ilhan Omar. Depends on the meaning of the word 'Asian'.

bagoh20 said...

"...the school where the defacements occurred will conduct a read-aloud of “A Picture Book of Anne Frank,’’ and have students create stenciled murals “around positive messages about diversity and inclusiveness, including around religion,”

Yea, that will work. Maybe they should force them to recite 10 Heil Marys.

Robert Cook said...

It's a hateful act, if done with intent to offend and frighten. However, get rid of the entire category of "hate crimes." They punish thought. They violate the First Amendment.
They criminalize people's beliefs and feelings toward others. Someone calls someone else by a racial epithet and then assaults him? Charge him with assault! Perhaps even assault and menacing. But not with a "hate" crime. To enhance the charge and the punishment because of the feelings/thoughts behind the act is a frightening overreach of the law.

bagoh20 said...

My all time favorite ethnic joke, told to me by my polish step-granddad:

Q: How did the Polack fall out of the tree?

A: Raking leaves.

I know, but it's cracked me up since I was just a little nip.

BJM said...

RK said "After the last Holocaust survivor has died of old age, is it still "cruel"?"

Perhaps you should ask the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors whose family tree ends at the gates of Nazi death camps.

BTW- The Poles, who were majority Catholic, were also targeted for extermination. Adolf Hitler himself remarked in August 1939 that he wanted his Death's Head forces "to kill without pity or mercy all men, women, and children of Polish descent or language."

This is the evil you are rationalizing. It's not a good look.

Mike Sylwester said...

Why is it such a big deal that a couple of 12-year-old colored boys wrote some stupid graffiti with chalk on a pavement?

Temujin said...

I read that Anne Frank picturebook bit and had a similar reaction. That will have zero meaning without some sort of reference frame. And honestly, they won't get any reference point to the WWII era from any schools today, and certainly not at that age, in this era.

College students today could not tell you what years WWII took place, and think Auschwitz is the name of a spa.

FullMoon said...

We do not know whether the two boys arrested in Queens understood the weight of their actions, ..

Sure. Twelve years old, probably spent a lot of time together philosophizing about the weight of their actions prior to the dastardly deed.

On the other hand, maybe they just thought it was funny.

Anonymous said...

The NYT writer was perhaps relieved that this time the "hate crime" wasn't perped by a member of the targeted "victim" group, which seems to be the usual thing these days.

"In this case the face of hate was the face of two children of color...

Gawd, how long is the idiotic phrase "[x] of color" going to plague us? It's remarkable in its stupidity and naked malice, even measured against the very high standard of malignant idiocy that's been set for contemporary political and cultural discourse.

MikeR said...

Wrong color. It would have been different if they had been white.

bagoh20 said...

"To enhance the charge and the punishment because of the feelings/thoughts behind the act is a frightening overreach of the law.".

I hoped that sooner or later we would agree on something. The idea of a hate crime is just stupid. People all around us hate us, we don't jail them, but a stranger can stab you in the street for your wallet, and you should feel better about it becuase at least he didn't hate you?

bagoh20 said...

When someone tries to force you to share their outrage, it's likely to backfire, especially if they were specifically trying to outrage you in the first place.

Ken B said...

I agree we shouldn’t over react to ignorance. Or smiling, but look at Covington High.

CJinPA said...

In big cities where neighborhood demographics are so often changing and **gentrification is often compelling those changes,** a truly holistic approach to preventing acts of racial and ethnic bias.... would be proactive rather than responsive.

1. Read between the lines: "Sometimes the racism is justified." This is generally accepted on the Left when the issue is "gentrification."

2. Use of the word "holistic" in a public policy discussion telegraphs that the speaker is bullshitting. Always.

Fernandinande said...

The forbidden words have migrated from sex to ethnicity.

Hate Speech: The New Pornography

n.n said...

they would have known that intersectionality lets minorities get away with anti-Semitism

White... too black, not black enough... Jew privilege. Been there. Done that.

Mike Sylwester said...

Correction to my comment at 12:20 PM

I inadvertently wrote the expression colored boys.

I meant to write Boys of Color.

Please make the mental correction.

Kevin said...

In TRUMP'S AMERICA, little boys of color feel free to scribble the symbols of white nationalism on school playgrounds...

Kevin said...

Let's make sure to add this to the hate crime stats so we can show how terrible things have become under our new nationalist leader.

Rep. Ilhan Omar's (DFL-MN) comments, on the other hand, won't be counted as such, because the Dems can't even agree they're deplorable enough to note.

MacMacConnell said...

I did something similar in the early sixties. It had more to do with a B motorcycle movie I'd seen, not about hate of the Jews or Nazism. My father an active duty WWII officer was livid. He realized it had nothing to do with antisemitism or fascism, but the cool, I thought, swastikas worn by the motorcycle gang. We had a long talk till he was assured that I understood why it was morally wrong. He then found the Life magazine series of WWII in pictures which he made me read. I was truly embarrassed and ashamed, some of the pictures brought tears to my eyes. These 12 year olds are probably as clueless as I was at 10.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

It's cool -- Blacks do everything cool.

Kevin said...

It's cool -- Blacks do everything cool.

If black kids can use the n-word, maybe they can also put swastikas wherever they wish.

BJM said...

Back in the day at my Jr High, students who brought sack lunches were allowed to eat in the quad which was observed, but unsupervised. We’d gather to eat, gossip, trade magazines and makeup (as 12 yr old girls are wont to do).

One day the two leaders of the group of girls decided to write the word FUCK on the side of the red brick gym wall in chalk. Truth be told I hasn’t comfortable but was too cowardly to walk away from the cool girls group.

We were dobbed in and all hell broke loose. We had to wash down the side of the gym, received a day’s suspension, and lunch detention for the rest of the school year. My parents were not so much angry as disappointed. I lost phone privileges, forfeited my allowance and was grounded for two months. All students were banned from lunching in the quad and you can imagine how popular we were after that was announced. What did I learn? Not to follow leaders.

It’s hard to say what these boys will learn.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

"There is crime, and there is not crime. I have always felt that attributing the motivation to prosecution is essentially designating 'thought crime' and 'political crime' which sets an extremely poor precedent."

Yes and no. It's proper and necessary to consider mens rea, criminal intent, and recklessness/negligence for many crimes. These things are already established principles of law, and they are in place to protect our rights.

Hate crime legislation has the opposite effect. It is enacted to decrease our freedom, to impinge on our rights, even our right to our own thoughts, illegitimately criminalizing opposing political views.


"...black and Asian kid hanging out together in real life."

I suspect the NYT is using "Asian" in the euphemistic British way, meaning "Muslim".

chuck said...

Maybe... The Spartan version.

Caligula said...

This appears to be a "hate crime" on the level of a pre-teen making jokes about excrement: children almost always do these things because these things/symbols are forbidden, not because they wish to hurt someone.

Nonetheless, the larger hate crime here is the apparent attitude of the NYT, that whether or not an act is a "hate crime" depends not on what was done but on the race, or ethnicity of the person(s) who did it. Because [insert race or ethnicity] can't be racist, because [insert political dogma].

Just as NYT insists one must believe an accusation for no other reason than because the accuser is female.

tommyesq said...

"In TRUMP'S AMERICA, little boys of color feel free to scribble the symbols of white nationalism on school playgrounds..."

Don't worry, Kevin, they got in the obligatory reference to Trump in the article - "Surely the bigotry that has been making more frequent appearances on the American stage since the Trump years is partly to blame."

Francisco D said...

It's a hateful act, if done with intent to offend and frighten. However, get rid of the entire category of "hate crimes." They punish thought. They violate the First Amendment.

Yup.

tommyesq said...

According tot he article, the boys were charged with "aggravated harassment." Under NY law, section 240.30, a person is guilty of this if, with the intent to harass another person, they communicate a threat to cause physical harm or unlawful harm to the property of such person, or makes a telephone call, whether or not a conversation ensues, with no purpose of legitimate communication, or makes physical contact causing physical injury.

The statute seems grossly overbroad - making a prank call is a misdemeanor! - and also seems not to apply in this situation. From what I read, the scribblings were (while clearly antisemetic) not directed to any particular person and did not make any threat of harm.

Not every wrong need be a crime, people.

BUMBLE BEE said...

Do you recall how hate crime laws were enacted. Tawana Brawley ring a bell? What was the blowback on that "escapade"? Did it kindle Crown Heights? What does it take to incite violence? I still haven't been convinced of Trump's "racism". Red hats a trigger. Red hats!
There are ALWAYS consequences.

FullMoon said...

If the kids had a MAGA hat on, their names and pictures would be all over the internet.

Anonymous said...

I suspect the NYT is using "Asian" in the euphemistic British way, meaning "Muslim".

I see no reason to think it's anything but standard American usage: "Asian" means East or SE Asian. For that matter, the British use of "Asian" wasn't something cooked up yesterday by the BBC as a deliberate obfuscating euphemism for "Muslim", either, a notion that (incorrectly) assumes that the Brits formerly employed "Asian" in the American way.

They're not trying to bamboozle their readers into thinking that a ME or South Asian perp is a Chinese dude. Like other Brit racial/ethnic terminology, Brit "Asian" never mapped onto American "Asian", and it's a mistake for Americans to insist on interpreting its usage that way. (That's not to say that the Brit "Asian" didn't at one point replace earlier terms that had begun to give goodthinkers the vapors - maybe "oriental"?)

Brit "Asian" may seem absurdly comprehensive to Americans, but, hey, it's an exercise in fine-grained distinctions compared to "the wogs begin at Calais".

BUMBLE BEE said...

Maybe they was just yoots eh Vinny?

jameswhy said...

According to the Pelosi/Harris standard, this was an act on Unintentional Hate.

Big Mike said...

Is That a Hate Crime?

It was until the authorities found out they weren't white, so I answer in the affirmative -- back in the 1960s I demonstrated for a color-blind society. Nothing I have seen in the intervening half century suggests to me that I was wrong. Quite the contrary, it increasingly confirms how correct I was and still am.

JaimeRoberto said...

Shortly after the 2016 election the San Francisco Police Department announced they were sending out cops disguised as persons of intersectionality to act as a honeypot for attacks by the rampaging MAGA-ites. Not too surprisingly, there hasn't been a word about it since. Maybe they are just too busy.

Char Char Binks, Esq. said...

I never said the BBC cooked up using "Asian" for "Muslim" yesterday or at any time, or that Brits formerly used it in the American way. I'm saying they use it for South Asians, particularly to obscure the crimes of Muslims.

I also didn't say the NYT was using it that way, only that I suspect so.

'Brit "Asian" may seem absurdly comprehensive to Americans...",

It's not absurd to call all Asians "Asian". It is inexcusable to use the word to cover for Muslims committing heinous crimes.

'... fine-grained distinctions compared to "the wogs begin at Calais".'

That comment is simply a way to tar "Brits" as obtuse and xenophobic.

Rabel said...

Looking at the NYPD Twitter and other news reports about the arrest, the only mention I see of a second, Asian arrestee is in the NY Times article. All others reference only the 12 YO AA.

Where did the Asian come from?

Rabel said...

And in looking through those reports it's clear that there have been many attacks on Jews by Blacks in NYC just recently. And I don't think they are Muslim Blacks. Looks like there is a mini-war going on and no one wants to talk about it.

Birkel said...

David Duke, Ilhan Omar, and AOC after this is no big deal.

Alternatively, they think Trump is at fault.

Birkel said...

Aver, not after

rhhardin said...

Nothing is a hate crime. It's free speech or vandalism.

Anonymous said...

CC Binks: I never said the BBC cooked up using "Asian" for "Muslim" yesterday or at any time, or that Brits formerly used it in the American way. I'm saying they use it for South Asians, particularly to obscure the crimes of Muslims.

Yeah, they use it for South Asians, 'cause their use of "Asian" encompasses South Asians. You seem puzzled by this. There's nothing euphemising or under-handed about that usage, in itself, so why are you looking for something problematic in normal Brit vernacular usage of "Asian"?

Now, I would not deny that the BBC tries to obscure the fact that a Muslim was the perp of this or that crime, but the fact that they're using "Asian" to describe a South Asian is not evidence of this.

I also didn't say the NYT was using it that way, only that I suspect so.

On no evidence. Jeez, doesn't the NYT bullshit and propagandize enough for you without having to strain at imagined instances of such?

'Brit "Asian" may seem absurdly comprehensive to Americans...,'

It's not absurd to call all Asians "Asian". It is inexcusable to use the word to cover for Muslims committing heinous crimes.


Hmmm. You claim to understand that the Brit usage of "Asian" is different from American usage (and so would understand that it would be normal to call someone from South Asia "Asian" in the UK), and you furthermore think it's OK to call Asians, Asians....therefore...

[insert giant unevidenced leap]

...a Brit referring to a South Asian as an Asian is in itself evidence that they are trying to cover for a South Asian of the Muslim persuasions' committing heinous crimes.

If you say so, Char. But frankly, as with the NYT, the bias of the BBC is so abundant and obvious that it's hardly necessary to work yourself into a lather over so flimsy a conjecture about usage.

'... fine-grained distinctions compared to "the wogs begin at Calais".'

That comment is simply a way to tar "Brits" as obtuse and xenophobic.


Yeah, that's what I was doing there. Blimey, you're obtuse and humorless today.

Mary Beth said...

Define "Asian". If someone is from Europe, the news usually tells you which country. If they are from North America, they tell you which country, and if it's the U.S., they tell you which state. Asia is big and diverse. It's insulting to group them all together as if they were the same.

Ingachuck'stoothlessARM said...

Mei & Julius Down by the schoolyard
Yo-- dat be a Hate Clime?
maybe a radical priest will get them released

ken in tx said...

Twelve year old boys find swastikas attractive for some reason. My 6th grade teacher, Mrs Tucker, would jerk up papers with them and deliver a lecture about her brother being killed fighting Nazis in WW II--this was in 1959. In the 7th grade, I was caught drawing them on a cartoon of Coach Anderson--a real jerk. I got three whacks with a paddle from him for that.

Saint Croix said...

I hate hate crimes. I hate the notion of hate crimes. I hate the idea that we could peek into the heart of another person, and punish them for their feelings. It's stupid, it's wrong, it's evil. It violates the very basis of free speech.

Punish vandalism, sure. But to punish people because you don't like what they said, what ideas they express, what emotions they feel? It's wrong and stupid.

So go ahead and guess about what motivates these kids. You people who love hate crimes? You're filled with hate!

Fen said...

"Define "Asian". If someone is from Europe, the news usually tells you which country. If they are from North America, they tell you which country, and if it's the U.S., they tell you which state. Asia is big and diverse. It's insulting to group them all together as if they were the same."

Spot on. Not only about the "oriental" bigotry, but I suspect the kid comes from a predominantly Islamic nation.

As in France when obviously Muslim perps are described as "North African Youths"

Lewis Wetzel said...

The episode described in the post reminds me of some graffiti I recently saw near the UH Hilo campus. It was on a power company transformer near the base of the stoplight where you turned into the campus from a busy street. There were some bushes next to it. The graffiti images were a spray painted erect penis and a swastika. Both were crudely done in black spray paint on the gray transformer.
I imagine the less than brilliant graffitist waiting behind the bushes for the traffic to clear. Then he dashes, and faces his blank canvas with his blank mind "F*ck! What am I going to make?" From the very top of his mind he pulls out the two things he imagines are the most objectionable things to everybody that he can paint and spends five seconds spray painting an erect penis and a swastika.
This was not a hate crime.

Lewis Wetzel said...

Look, I can't be the first one to notice that he Left does not want to banish political and racial hate. They want to license it. Every reference to hate crimes I've seen that originated from the Left specifies that the term applies when the group hated is historically oppressed, and the person committing the crime is white. They don't give a damn about "hate crimes" against whites committed by other groups.

Hyphenated American said...

I remember NYT was much more indignant when it discovered a white boy in a maga hat was standing in Washington DC near an American Indian....

Jack Klompus said...

This sounds like the "hate crime" in Philadelphia when two 12 year olds (one black, one white) lynched a black baby doll in a tree. Mayor McWoke couldn't find a camera fast enough when the story broke.

London Girl said...

A word on British usage. Yes Asian means from the Indian subcontinent. Could be Pakistani, Bengali or Indian. An Asian person from any other part of Asia would be described by their nationality. You would never describe a Japanese person as an Asian.

I guess this usage came about because most Asian immigrants came from what had been British India but because that was now three separate countries you couldn't accurately describe them as Indian although that said we use the phrase Indian restaurant even though historically most of them are run by Bengalis.

Also when I was growing up it was uncomfortable to use the word Pakistani - too close to Paki I guess, a word which is completely verboten.

Actually these days you are much more likely to hear people differentiate between Pakistanis, Bengalis and Indians. But Asian is still the generic word for people from the subcontinent. The BBC is not above trying to hide the identity of perpetrators but when it does that it doesn't call then Asian!

Balfegor said...

I wonder if they were immigrants. Hitler doesn't have quite the same totemic power in the third world as he has in the first. And he had more than a few fans among nationalists in poor countries. This crops up from time to time -- usually in Asia -- with Nazi themed cafes, weddings, etc. that excite outrage in the West.

Balfegor said...

And when I say "Asia," I mean East Asia.