Mom beats son for participating in Baltimore riots

saw50st8

Fri, May 01 2015, 2:03 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

saw50st8, ur comment is just plain foolish. you validate that u are just as afraid in boro park as u r in some other high crime neighborhoods by pointing out that Leiby Kletzky wasn't killed by a black man. Thats like saying me and Bill Gates r the same because we both have money in our wallets and bank accounts and ignoring how much more he has than me. Are we really going to find a case where a jew committed murder (maybe there are another few cases) and compare it to how many murders happen in some of these rough neighborhoods? U

My comment is plain foolish? I'm not afraid with neighborhoods I regularly go to because I've been there a lot and haven't experienced any serious crime. I have friends who live in Harlem and the South Bronx who have no issues. A lot of crime in bad neighborhoods is gang related and them fighting against each other. I don't get involved and therefore my risk is lower.

I have been assaulted in Midwood/Flatbush so maybe I should fear that? Rolling Eyes

It's ok to say something like "I perceive Harlem to be scarier because I am more familiar with the culture of Boro Park than Harlem." or "Harlem has a higher crime rate therefore I would be more scared"

It's not ok to say "Ahhh! Poor black neighborhoods!!! They are all out to kill you!!!!!" or something like that.

You sound like a very racist person. It's not one post specifically but your overarching narrative that you are telling.

shoshanim999

Fri, May 01 2015, 2:27 pm

If ur comparing the likelihood of getting assaulted in midwood/Flatbush to say Baltimore in the area where those "protesters" live, that just doesn't make sense. I suppose ur fortunate that ur comfortable walking around in bad neighborhoods but its very reasonable that many people aren't comfortable. Also I never said" they r all out to kill u" in Harlem. That being said, I'm sure a person is more likely to be mugged/killed in Harlem than Midwood.

vintagebknyc

Fri, May 01 2015, 2:31 pm

shoshanim999 wrote:

when was the last time you went to harlem?

and what time of day are you thinking, and which particular part of harlem?

sequoia

Fri, May 01 2015, 2:39 pm

This is effin hopeless.

Look, I am the most anxious person ever, and I NEVER felt unsafe living in Harlem and returning on the subway at all hours.

Bed-stuy, yes. Scary. Abandoned lots, broken windows, and I'm pretty sure I saw half a car in someone's yard. So yes, Bed-stuy I don't like at any time of day. Harlem, otoh, is a normal, functioning, diverse neighborhood, and the particular block where I lived was all families with kids and young professionals.

So stop picking on Harlem because you sound very uninformed. And yes, racist, because you're assuming a neighborhood is bad just because it's predominantly black.

gp2.0

Fri, May 01 2015, 2:40 pm

I remember during the "knockout game" phase I was afraid to step out of the house even in the middle of boro park. Bad people are everywhere.

Yes I am afraid of high-crime neighborhoods, whether they are predominantly black, white, asian, latino or whatever. And I am not afraid of a neighborhood based solely on a large amount of people there belonging to the same race, unless that same neighborhood is also high-crime.

dancingqueen

Fri, May 01 2015, 3:15 pm

There are parts of Harlem that are very gentrified now. Though east Harlem can still be dicey in many places. It's certaibly not all black btw.

There are neighborhoods in the south Bronx and Brooklyn that are truly dangerous with a lot of gun violence. There is no denying that some of these neighborhoods are predominately black. There are also many middle class and higher black people that have nothing to do with ghetto lifestyle at all.

MagentaYenta

Fri, May 01 2015, 6:29 pm

sequoia wrote:

When I still lived in Los Angeles I had to walk blocks through So. Central to work. I choose not to live in fear and treat all with dignity and respect. I had safety assured by the Crips, Bloods and an Asian gang because I took the time to talk and say good morning. My stop was just past Normandy and Florence where Denny was beaten. My DD frequently stays in Harlem when she visits NYC. It is not cause for worry.

So there are two of us Sequoia, you are not alone.

FranticFrummie

Fri, May 01 2015, 10:17 pm

MagentaYenta wrote:

I live in a very mixed neighborhood, and I've had this experience as well. I live at the edge of the highest crime area in Seattle, just on the "good side of the tracks".

I keep my back straight, make two seconds of eye contact, and give everyone a nod and a smile. Even with gang members, that sends a signal that you're not out to challenge anyone, and that you have a live and let live attitude. You go your way, and I'll go mine.

ora_43

Sat, May 02 2015, 5:09 pm

gp2.0 wrote:

Yes I am afraid of high-crime neighborhoods, whether they are predominantly black, white, asian, latino or whatever. And I am not afraid of a neighborhood based solely on a large amount of people there belonging to the same race, unless that same neighborhood is also high-crime.

Yes.

Like I said, I would be worried walking around some parts of my neighborhood. And most people in my neighborhood are paler than me, which is saying something.

WADR to the stories safe-feeling interactions with gang members, I don't see how that's reassuring. Yes, the scary-looking young men are often not so bad. Or even if they are so bad, they're mostly a danger to themselves/each other.

But the danger to passersby tends to be from drunks or poor drug addicts. And there's really no amount of friendly nodding that's going to help with that, because what makes them dangerous is that they're barely mentally present to begin with. (This is just my take on it, not a professional opinion or anything.)

I'm all for ending the stigma against poorer neighborhoods. But I think the stigma needs to end through a better understanding of cause and effect, not by downplaying the danger.

Cause and effect: poor neighborhoods tend to have more violent crime because violent criminals (or at least, the subset of violent criminals most likely to get caught) tend to be unemployed drug users without a whole lot of money - hence, in need of cheap housing. Not (necessarily) because there's a problem with the neighborhood as a whole. IOW the violence is often a result of housing prices, and doesn't reflect on the majority of the population.

The danger: I'm not saying Harlem is dangerous. I have no idea. It's probably fine. If I walked around the "scary" streets here every night for a month, I'd probably be fine. But I think it's important not to give people the false impression that if they treat people with respect they'll be safe in a high crime area. There are some things that can help a bit, but there's often no difference in behavior between someone who was a victim and the 1,000 people who weren't.

33055

Sun, May 03 2015, 6:13 am

chani8 wrote:

It's racist to justify physical abuse toward a teen because of his 'community'...

Oh, and when he grows up, he wants to be a police officer.

Nothing to do with race so it is not racist. It had to do with the fact this kid is in the system posing with an ankle monitoring bracelet and a handgun on Facebook. His mother caught him doing something she justifiably feared would get him killed since several of his friends were already dead. Her brother served a long term prison sentence and she herself had been arrested several times but knows what it takes to turn her life around. She is now a church going lady. BTW her family now has reason to believe her son will escape punishment for his part in the riots because of his mom's actions. Totally justified to hit someone in the head to keep them alive and out of prison.

BTW I never hit my kids, but you can believe I would in this situation.

debsey

Sun, May 10 2015, 2:21 pm

chani8 wrote:

It's racist to justify physical abuse toward a teen because of his 'community'...

Oh, and when he grows up, he wants to be a police officer.

When Kaiser Permanente attempted to create a "universal" parenting program to teach to young mothers, the African American parents claimed the program was "culturally imperialistic" because it taught that physical discipline is abusive. There is certainly debate in the larger African American community about this, but I know for example that DYFS and ACS workers don't call spanking automatically abusive in certain sociocultural contexts (Orthodox Judaism being one of those sociocultural contexts, ironically....)

See http://www.dimensionsofculture.....lies/
Quote from that site
Child Rearing
African Americans describe their approach to child rearing as being less permissive than Americans of European descent. For example, telling a child that he is “in time out” may not seem as effective as giving a spanking, and culturally spanking is not frowned upon. The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that parents be encouraged to develop methods other than spanking for managing undesirable behavior in their children. However, among African Americans, studies show a preference for using “harsh” or “authoritarian” forms of discipline that include physical punishment. This does not mean to suggest that abuse is considered acceptable among African Americans. Culture must be taken into account in childrearing. “Because parenting occurs in a socio-cultural context, recommendations about what constitutes an effective approach to discipline may not be generalizable to all populations among or between similar cultures. 4,5

Isn't there a certain implied imperialistic sense of superiority in telling members of one culture what constitutes "abusive child rearing" based on the standards of another culture?

I don't think it's racist to say that this is a culturally accepted practice in this community and that I don't think this mother's intention was to be abusive. Her intention was to save her child's life. My heart went out to her for her obvious terror and panic on behalf of her son.

etky

Sun, May 10 2015, 3:09 pm

I'm Johnny come very lately to this thread and I admit that I have not really been keeping abreast of this story. However, I came across this piece "What Black Mom's Know" from the NYT, reprinted in the Jerusalem Post this morning and thought it an interesting perspective that is relevant to the discussion on this thread:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05.....;_r=0
My apologies if it's already been posted- I haven't read the entire thread.

chani8

Tue, May 12 2015, 2:17 am

Debsey, I do understand that stance, but for some reason I cannot change my mind on this. I'm sorry to be so stubborn.

I recall the video we posted on imamother years ago of the french charedi man who slapped his daughter at the kotel. We were unanimously horrified. It wasn't the same situation at all, but I'm still reminded of it because we were all so clear that slapping on the face was abuse.

Now, in this case, it's a cultural thing? In some charedi chedarim, it's culturally acceptable for rebbes to smack the boys. Is that ok with you?

FranticFrummie

Tue, May 12 2015, 2:44 am

etky wrote:

That's a really well written editorial, and very on point, I think.

ora_43

Tue, May 12 2015, 3:24 am

chani8 wrote:

She had JUST seen him doing something that put him in immediate physical danger! I don't see how you can compare it to the kotel video at all.

I think the praise for this mom is unfortunate, because it's mostly coming as part of a larger narrative of "see? Even the rioters' moms know that they're hooligans who just need a good hard smack." Which is not only not true, but is twisting her motives to the point where they're unrecognizable - from what she said, she hit her son because she's afraid of police violence, not because she thinks it's a non-issue...

But I think the counter-criticism of her as abusive is really unfair. Maybe she's abusive, I don't know her. But virtually any parent could snap if they saw their child doing something life-threatening. Like, I don't hit my 8-year-old - at all - but I can't promise that if I saw her deliberately run into traffic tomorrow, I wouldn't hit her then. If we're going to label even that level of uncertainty "abuse," you're going to make 99% of parents "abusive parents." ETA - and frankly, I'm not sure that remaining 1% are the top 1% of parents.

chani8

Tue, May 12 2015, 4:35 am

Calling it what it is, abusive, is not the same as labelling her an abusive parent. Because we don't know how often she hits him. Though by his demeanor, I think it was often.

Anyway, surveys show that most parents spank their children, even when they don't believe it's the right thing to do, and I'm hoping most parents are not abusive.

I truly doubt that you'd hit your child upside the head as a fear response. Unless you've already established a pattern of hitting your child upside the head when stressed.

I think it's more correct that we first admit that the mother's response was 'abusive', and after that, there is room for empathizing with her terror. But to justify it because of empathy? I do not agree.

And to classify it as culturally acceptable feels like a cover up.