Secrets of the City

Interestingly, according to the story “The last reported racially motivated crime in the city of Anoka was June 2003,” and, in that instance, it was juvenile vandals. I guess the Anoka branch of the KKK hasn’t had a lot of luck recruiting.

“I guess the Anoka branch of the KKK hasn’t had a lot of luck recruiting.”

I grew up in Anoka and in my graduating class of some 700 kids there were only two African Americans. Currently the population is only about 3% non-caucasian.

I am not saying that the KKK is alive and kicking there but how else do you explain this? Keeping in mind that I graduated from high school almost 20 years ago and nothing has changed about the demographics…

It seems that Anoka has a reputation for being racist… and for being the Halloween Capital of the World. Having never lived there and I don’t know anyone from Anoka, I can’t speak to the racist part, but the positive events that take place in Anoka are negated by the stories of cross burnings or racially motivated crimes that appear to happen often.

And why would there be any reason for the neighbors to get into an arguement about what happened? A burning cross on a black family’s yard is hard to interpret any other way other than negatively.

Just because a community has a small percentage of minorities, does not necessarily correlate with racist activities.

What I meant by that was that it is not an excuse.

I will say that the somewhat “backwards” thinking that I saw all around me growing up is the reason I moved the minute I graduated from high school. I have family there still so I visit often and I have noticed that the general attitude is changing. Younger, more liberal folks are moving and it is becoming an easier place to visit.

NOTE: I am NOT making generalized statements about the community. I am just saying – I was raised there and lived there for 18 years and I am pretty certain that if I had stayed I would be a “somewhat racist” more conservative person. Not at all like I am today.

“Younger, more liberal folks are moving and it is becoming an easier place to visit.”

I meant “moving in” not “moving” as in away…

Are those six kids in Jena being accused of a hate crime?

Just wondering.

So then the demographics are changing? Which is it?

The demographics aren’t changing or if they are it is a very slow moving process. What is changing is the general attitude and mentality of the folks that live there.

Are those six kids in Jena being accused of a hate crime?

Just wondering.

No, it was a response, wrong as it may have been, to a history of racial discrimination. The beating of the white kid happened after racist events took place and the school/city officials made poor decisions on how to handle the escalation. When white kids put up three nooses in a tree designated as a “whites only” tree and are not punished because school officials declare it be a “prank” and not a hate crime, trouble is bound to happen.

I can’t believe that imbeciles like this are still out there.

How did the people that did this light the cross at night and no one noticed it, that seems strange. Furthermore, what was the dispute with the neighbors about. Something is not right about this. That said, people that burn crosses need to be punished.

No, it was a response, wrong as it may have been, to a history of racial discrimination. The beating of the white kid happened after racist events took place and the school/city officials made poor decisions on how to handle the escalation.

The beating took place a year after the noose incident. The individual charged with murder had four prior arrests for assault. The school for not addressing the noose incident was completely negligent, both the principal and the superintendent should be fired.

I am pretty certain that if I had stayed I would be a “somewhat racist” more conservative person

Excuse me? I’m a very conservative person and there’s not a racist bone in my body. I know plenty of racist “liberals” though. stupid wasichu.

“there’s not a racist bone in my body”

Bullshit. Your ulna once told me a horribly offensive Mexican joke.

I graduated from Blaine HS in 2000, and we spent many a nights cruising up and down Main St. in Anoka (what can I say, it’s the burbs). There was a group of people that lived in Anoka and called themselves the “All American Boys”. They were a bunch of idiots with large trucks that flew confederate flags and chased around minorities. There would be large fights between them and everyone else, and it became such a problem that the police cracked down and started banning people flying any sort of regalia from their vehicles. It was like a mini gang war going on up there. Anoka has had a reputation for quite awhile for being a hodunk racist town, and it saddens me to hear that this type of shit still goes on.

The AAB’s were in Anoka back in the late 70’s, too. Same basic types. I’m guessing they inherited their parents’ mobile homes and just stayed around.

“When white kids put up three nooses in a tree designated as a “whites only” tree and are not punished because school officials declare it be a “prank” and not a hate crime, trouble is bound to happen.“

Go to the NYT (9/26) and read the entirely sensible, well-thought-out, and (to a lawyer, at least) very believable article by the prosecutor who made the charging decisions. I read it, and immediately knew that, having read lots and lots about the situation on the national sites and national papers, I didn’t know jack.

And, no, I don’t think anyone was trying to mislead – I just don’t think any reporter has the story at all. And, looking at what you typed, neither do you. (That’s not an insult. I didn’t either.)

“I’m a very conservative person and there’s not a racist bone in my body. I know plenty of racist “liberals” though.”

I didn’t mean to imply that conservatives are racist…BUT…Anoka is a very conservative city with many racist folks. If I had stayed I may have turned out like them, luckily I did not. That is all I meant.

You are right, there are as many racist liberals as there are conservatives. There just happens to be a denser population of racist conservatives in Anoka.

punk kids. nothing more, i would suspect.

bobby_b: point taken. I read the op-ed by Reed Walters (I believe the article to which you are referring) and understand from a legal standpoint the law does not declare what the kids in Jena did as a “hate crime.”
And do get me wrong, I don’t condone the beat down, but whether the state or the federal government declare hanging nooses (and it was only two and I said three), it’s still a hostile action and should be treated as much more than a prank given the history of this country’s treatment of blacks.
But, it’s much more than the one noose tree hanging incident or the following incidents afterwards, it’s the attitude towards people of color. Whether it’s Jena, LA or Anoka, MN the message being sent is that there are those in these communities that are intolerant of others who are not white.
I don’t want to get mired down in whether it’s legally a hate crime, but I do think there are inequalities in the system of justice when it comes to the color of a person’s skin.

And do get me wrong = and don’t get me wrong

“it’s still a hostile action and should be treated as much more than a prank given the history of this country’s treatment of blacks“

No disagreement here. Problem is, you have all those official public employee types to whom we’d normally look for action and a fix, but our system doesn’t allow them to take meaningful action or provide a proper fix in this situation. We’ve taken discretion and subjective judgment away from cops and judges and prosecutors because we don’t trust them to decide the way we’d decide – and so, now, they’re stuck doing only what their manual tells them to do.

In essence, I think several thousand protesters traveled down to LA land to protest the fact that kids of all colors and sizes and attitudes were real assholes to each other down there.

Making burning a cross illegal has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas was even so strongly in favor of that decision that he deemed it appropriate to make that one of the very few times he ever said a word from the bench.

Given that the history of lynching associated with the noose is nearly identical to the history of violence and terrorism that Thomas associated with the cross burnings, I don’t think it would be a stretch for legislators to address the noose.

And as I said, given the history of lynching of balcks by the noose, I think it goes a little bit beyond “kids of all colors and sizes and attitudes were real assholes to each other down there.”

(I mean, there’s a barber in Jena that refuses blacks as customers, because his white customers refuse to allow their hair to be cut with the same scissors that cut black’s hair.)

I’ll add:

Given the history of the noose (and the Supreme Court’s present stance on cross burning), an aggressive prosecutor could probably have found a way to have charged them with making a terroristic threat.

At the very least, and aggressive school administrator could have expelled them under the same reasoning.

If the dead bicyclist in Minneapolis turns out to have been killed by a black, will it be a hate crime?

Bud jr: That would depend on motive, wouldn’t it? If the cyclist was attacked because he was white then it would be treated as a hate crime, I would suggest.

I don’t know that I have any real issues with the kids getting charges. My issues are with what they were charged with and the fact that they’re being tried as adults.

Bud jr: That would depend on motive, wouldn’t it? If the cyclist was attacked because he was white then it would be treated as a hate crime, I would suggest.

And to parse that further, it would have to be because he was white and would be a statement against white people of all sorts. It can’t just be, “he was white and I thought he’d have some money.”

Tell it to the parents of the beaten kid.

“Tell it to the parents of the beaten kid.”

Tell them what?

Are you trying to argue that ANY interracial violence should be classified as a hate crime?

I think any violent crime should be treated as a felony and jail time should ensue. I’m not really for hate crime bills, they sound all nice but I have a hard time thinking they are a deterrent. Much like I don’t think capital punishment is a deterrent.

Ted Rall has a pretty good take on the topic.

“Six against one isn’t a schoolyard fight. I’ve been in more than my fair share of schoolyard fights, so I know. Fights are one on one. Six on one is attempted murder. Kicking someone after they’ve passed out is attempted murder. Nothing Barker said, no matter how foul, can justify such a vicious assault by bullying jocks. This is the stuff of Columbine.

Symbolic hate speech, even as vile as nooses in the context of the recent history of the Deep South, pales next to actual physical violence” from The Dream Downscaled

I’m also of the opinion any violent crime should be treated as a felony.

Mpls Simpleton: “I’m not really for hate crime bills, they sound all nice but I have a hard time thinking they are a deterrent. “

I believe that part of the justification for additional hate crime deterrents is so that when someone lights a cross on fire outside a black person’s home or spray paints swastikas in Jewish cemeteries, the penalty for such an act exceeds a simple vandalism charge.

I don’t know that I have any real issues with the kids getting charges. My issues are with what they were charged with and the fact that they’re being tried as adults.

And to parse that further, white kids that had committed similar acts in the year between the noose incident and this particular beating were charged with lesser crimes.

I’m not really for hate crime bills, they sound all nice but I have a hard time thinking they are a deterrent.

They make the thoughts in your head subject to criminal prosecution. That should be scary to anyone.

white kids that had committed similar acts in the year between the noose incident and this particular beating were charged with lesser crimes.

Do you have a link? I don’t recall hearing about 6 white kids beating a black kid beyond the point of unconciousness in the state and time frame you mentioned.

They make the thoughts in your head subject to criminal prosecution. That should be scary to anyone.

I don’t see why. We punish murder differently based on the thoughts in the criminal’s head prior to committing the act.

Should the difference between a bigoted assault and a regular assault be akin to the difference between First Degree murder and Manslaughter.

Bigotry is a foul thing, but should it now be a crime as well?

The Rat: “They make the thoughts in your head subject to criminal prosecution. “

They don’t, really. They make actions more accountable based on intent.

Wrong.

It’s thought policing, and another example of PC run amok.

Burning someone’s lawn is simply damage to property / vandalism.

Charge accordingly.

Were the white teens who wrecked that Buddhist church charged with “hate crime”?

Should the difference between a bigoted assault and a regular assault be akin to the difference between First Degree murder and Manslaughter.

Bigotry is a foul thing, but should it now be a crime as well?

I think it’s an intent thing, Rat. But, if Bobby_b is around today, he’ll be able to explain it much better than I.

Randomly choosing someone to assault is a person’s thought to commit a crime regardless who the person is, but if someone perpetrates a crime on someone because of skin color, beliefs, homosexuality then it becomes intent to target a specific group of people.
And to max’s point; if an assault is planned, it is differentiated.

“Burning someone’s lawn is simply damage to property / vandalism.”

Not to the people inside the house, it isn’t. It’s an implicit threat that (I don’t think) shouldn’t be punished in the same way as some one tagging bus stops.

If somebody breaks your planters, that’s likely to be an annoying inconvenience. If someone burns a cross on your lawn and you’re black, that’s a threatening message. I would suggest that something like that could change the way a person sees their neighborhood and make them feel afraid, beleaguered and more paranoid.

It seems like it should be a more serious offense.

Compelling points, but I’m not quite convinced.

You are ascribing emotions to the victim based on their race, which is essentially…. racist.

Also consider that historically, someone burning a cross on your yard was not an IMPLICIT threat.

It was quite explicit: “You’re next.”

Really? “Next” for what exactly?

What historical proof are you citing for that type of statement?

ps iF THAT dEERHOOF GUY ISN’T GoNE sOON, i AM OUT OF HERE!

bud…are you really telling us that with all the times you’ve watched “Birth of a Nation” with your kids, you still don’t get the symbolic meanings of these signals?

oh, and I agree with you on the Deerhoof thing.

Having bud participate in discussion about race is a little like having someone who is obsessed with myths about Atlantis — and is convinced they are true — screaming at you while you’re trying to reasoned discussion about fishing.

Thank you, you’ve made your crazy point. Submerged city. Yes. Yes. Now can we get back to talking about swordfish?

Not to the people inside the house

could easily be

“Not to the people who own the taco stand.”

What no Grand Wizard comments teucer?

Who’s the zampolit “imputing an ugly motive to people he doesn’t even know” today?

Or was that blowfish?

Bud Jr: “You are ascribing emotions to the victim based on their race, which is essentially…. racist.”

What? Are are you trying to trick my brain into an embolism with these bizarro world statements?

How about I was ascribing some possible emotions (note the term “could”) to the victim based on things that we human beans all share?

As it happens, I was basing my comments on what interview subjects have said in the past about such experiences. Although you don’t have to be the Amazing Frikkin’ Kreskin to figure out for yourself that a lot of people, when faced with an anonymous threat, are going to worry and wonder about who was responsible.

Laughing @ Bizzaro world.

I don’t think you’re making much sense. If you’re going to denounce someone, you ought to enumerate each accusation logically and clearly, so there’s no room for misinterpretation; “He was then said to have suckled a wicked familiar in the form of a badger from a magical nipple given to him by Satan Himself. The next day, two head of cattle became sick.”

That’s the ticket. Not this incoherent ranting.

“Not to the people inside the house

“Not to the people who own the taco stand.”

So, if I’ve got this straight, you’re making a direct comparison between goofing around in the comments section on a humor blog and burning a cross on a lawn. Do you see why that might be ridiculous?

Or did you mean the post itself? Please clarify what you are saying here.

What no Grand Wizard comments teucer?

For someone who writes an allegedly humorous blog, I’m surprised at how hard you seem to struggle with the idea of context. Let me see if I can helpfully chart this for you.

As you can see, similar things can be both funny or not funny, depending on the context. Do you see how that works?

I bet that the only person who read my comment yesterday and got offended was you. Everyone else probably has a fully functional sense of humor were able to see it in the spirit in which it was intended.

However, I would certainly willing to apologize to anyone else who found it offensive so long as a) they’re not in the KKK and b) are JACC.

“Who’s the zampolit “imputing an ugly motive to people he doesn’t even know” today?”

Are you trying to say that I’m imputing an ugly motive to a cross burner? I guess I must just be ignoring all the times when burning a cross was just a neighborly thing to do.

I don’t think that’s what you mean to say, but I’m baffled as to an alternative explanation.

K, let me just say I love Wayne for bringin’ the thread chart to MnSpeak.
And teucer, you have taken it to one of the funniest levels I’ve every seen, although I can’t say that my sense of humor is intact as most tell me that I’m sick as I find humor in most everything.

And this:
I guess I must just be ignoring all the times when burning a cross was just a neighborly thing to do.
Brought up images of welcome wagon type women running around Anoka, knocking on doors and welcoming black families to the neighborhood with a choice of 1). Burning cross on lawn, sizes 6ft or 10ft or 2). Yellow ribboned nooses.

And Bud: really now. I try not to respond to your comments, but you’re comments are maddening. This comment for instance:
What historical proof are you citing for that type of statement?
There’s a group called the KKK who used the burning cross as a symbol of intimidation against blacks for years.
Here’s what the supreme court had to say about cross burning
It’s not just vandalism and it’s not about being PC. It’s about racial discrimination and sending a very strong message that whomever is the recipient of such a hateful act is not welcome.

The Constitution does not protect intimidation, putting someone in reasonable fear of bodily harm. Throughout history, cross-burning has been just that. It is the calling card of the Ku Klux Klan and a prelude to violent attacks on blacks. It is possible to debate, as people do, the message conveyed by flying a Confederate flag or wearing a hood. But burning a cross on a black family’s lawn says nothing more nuanced than if the occupants do not fall into line, they will be injured or killed. Intimidation is no less a crime because it is conveyed through the symbol of a burning cross rather than through spoken words.

(Post deleted.)

Post deleted. This is not really the place to be casting unsupported aspersions. If you want to post again with something factual, like actual dates, case numbers, or links for your claims, I’ll allow it.

this one is for msparber who deleted my post….did u check out the news lately….hate to be the one buy told yah so….ha ha ha ha ha h a

and there was facts it just wasnt in the news yet….

check out startribune.com its about time the news got it right…

Well, as I said, post actual links and I have no problem with it.

*in awe of Teucer’s comment*

well i did have facts otherwise i would not of posted the comment that I did, however you still seem in denial. Oh well im gloating that the info went public about the so called “cross burning victim”…

and bud jr wish you had more comments on here.

Facts at that point that were completely unsubstantiated, and I don’t know you from adam. If you’re going to toss around accusations, please be ready to back them up, and, if you can’t, don’t complain when I delete them.

I wont respond after this…like I said I had facts to back it up at the time I wrote it …u want arrest case numbers I could have provided it. You can delete all the comments you want I just want people to know the truth about the Bullshit that people like you believe from the media…I want citizens to WAKE UP and quit opening their arms to vultures and blood suckers…and if you would of watched what star tribune had to say about the cross burning victim…everything i said about him doing it himself was correct….

If you’re going to toss around accusations, please be ready to back them up

max, read the initial posts on the purse snatcher thread again. folks there jumped to conclusions about the actions of the photographer with absolutely no knowledge of the situation, and you had no problem with it. not until the actual principal in the event chimed in did we know what really happened. yet you failed to delete those posts…maybe it’s not that similar as i don’t know what mabennet wrote, and was possibly full of racial overtones, in which case, fine. but i still think you need to get off yer pedestal.

Gee teucer according to the my webstats you sure spend a lot of time on my blog for someone that doesn’t like it.

It’s a blog, not a humor blog. A blog, which I happen to write humour posts. You don’t like it? Who cares. Too bad for you you spent so many hours using Google search trying to find something deragotory to post about and failed. That doesn’t make you a loser, but I’d wager the rest of your life does. Between all the time you spent combing my site, obsessing, and making that cheesy graph to prove a point you’ll never be able to prove you could have actually done something useful.

So you know, here’s your context, fuck off.

“max, read the initial posts on the purse snatcher thread again. folks there jumped to conclusions about the actions of the photographer with absolutely no knowledge of the situation, and you had no problem with it. not until the actual principal in the event chimed in did we know what really happened. yet you failed to delete those posts…maybe it’s not that similar as i don’t know what mabennet wrote, and was possibly full of racial overtones, in which case, fine. but i still think you need to get off yer pedestal.”

I don’t believe that they accused the photog of doing something illegal. And from the exchenge between max and mabennet, I think I have a pretty good guess at what mabennet wrote.

I wont respond after this…like I said I had facts to back it up at the time I wrote it …u want arrest case numbers I could have provided it.

But you didn’t, and that’s the point.

I don’t believe that they accused the photog of doing something illegal.

agreed, but they were slamming his character, which i think is just as bad. i too have an idea what mabennet wrote – but max didn’t say that’s why he deleted it. he’s reiterating it’s cuz there were no facts to back up his opinions, and i’m wondering when that became a criteria to post on this website.

Here’s the Strib link. The guy has been charged with setting the fire himself.

JACC: “Gee teucer according to the my webstats you sure spend a lot of time on my blog for someone that doesn’t like it…. Too bad for you you spent so many hours using Google search trying to find something deragotory to post about and failed… Between all the time you spent combing my site, obsessing, and making that cheesy graph to prove a point you’ll never be able to prove you could have actually done something useful.”

You are right, I did spend time reading your blog and learning something about you because if I’m going to speculate about someone, I prefer to try to use solid evidence to found my speculations rather than throwing out any wild accusation that strikes my fancy.

I learned that you are not a hypocrite, that you really want people to think you are funny, and that your intentions are mostly good. All of which, I was careful to reflect in my chart which did actually make a couple of good points that you are clearly not interested in considering.

After spending some time getting to know you via your blog and this forum, I vaguely suspect (but can’t be sure) that you are very, very bad at admitting that you might have made a mistake, particularly when it’s over a public and serious accusation. That’s not very admirable.

At any rate, I might suggest that next time before you accuse anyone of anything, you make sure you’ve done your homework before you publicly denounce them, or you’ll end up being made to look like an arse.

Alternatively, most people will give people the benefit of the doubt before throwing out accusations unless they have solid evidence; you might try that next time.

That is all.

That chart is absolutely fantastic.

Actually there are 20 humor posts out of 1071 and like I said prior; I could care less if you find them funny or not. Humor is subjective.

As for the time you spent “getting to know me” on my blog. I doubt spending 3 hours using Google site search on my blog for “gay” is a noble endeavor.

You want me to acknowledge your graph? Fine. It’s dumb and passive aggressive. A mix of something I suspect you consider to be earth shattering and thought provoking to veil an insult. From what I’ve seen, that’s your way, passive aggressive.
Though, be proud you’re local friends will continue to you what you want to hear and you always have that super high opinion of yourself going for you.

I notice you rate yourself nice and high on the humor scale with everything you do. Bravo!
Sadly, my humor rating is done by a community and not by my ever hungry ego.

When you say ” I vaguely suspect (but can’t be sure) that you are very, very bad at admitting that you might have made a mistake” I’d say the same could be said about you, but whatever I’m pretty sure I was clear with my context in my last post; fuck off.

Maybe this is a conversation the two of you should have privately via email at this point.

Talk about played out.