Citing an example of what I consider to be racist in regards to your previous question. I find it odd that you find the incident to be "perceived" as a hate crime. What exactly would qualify as a hate crime to you?

Back to the topic....
 

I understand and can relate to both sides of the issue. But I think unfamiliarity and unwillingness to share (based on social class and race) are what breeded the contempt. Safety is just a more PC catch word.

I hope this situation is handled somehow and this relatively uninteresting story dies down. :)

They should either hire a competent PR person, or at least put a gag order on this guy.

Haha, don't hold back, tell us how you really feel. ;)

A friend and I were discussing this and one of the questions we had was if any other camps had visited before hand. I will have to forward this article.

Also @Phil I suppose it is ok to be blase about this story, but these are real children who are being affected by what they perceive to be racism and/or classism (whether that perception is accurate or not). Though I guess we can all agree, based on available information, that even if the club owner's response was not motivated by race, the responses of some of the patrons were. Note the children's response to their, to use Morrison's term, "disallowing." That is always noteworthy.

FWIW, I have to agree w/ Kevlar. It goes both ways. You can't say one is racism and the other is just 'perceived' b/c it was the other way around.

My understanding is that racism involves an element of power. So, while the actions of whites towards blacks can be qualified as racism, the opposite situation can't technically be called racism. It doesn't make it right or ok, but it's not racism either.

However, I don't have a lot of interest or experience in sociology, so I may not be explaining this correctly.

Do hate crime laws make that distinction?

It depends on the state - there's a wide variation among states, and some extend the term "hate crime" to deal with everything from face to sexual orientation. Some states generalize the hate crime law to include laws based on "bigotry" or "bias" (like CT for example).

The Anti-Defamation League site has a decent summary, although I wonder if the info is up to date: http://www.adl.org/learn/hate_crimes..._frameset.html

I understand where this is coming from and recall a thread a few years back where this was discussed in depth. At any rate, the definition you propose here is not a universally accepted one. Far from it.

The word is so politically and ethically charged that it has many acceptable definitions and this power-based definition is only one of many.

ETA: IIRC, the thread I just referred to is the infamous "Prejudism" thread.

Oh, I understand that it's not the universally-accepted definition; I apologize if it seemed like I was trying to give the "right" or "correct" definition. I was just explaining my own understanding of the term.

This is a relatively uninteresting and nongroundbreaking story to me, so are the reactions to this incident that I've heard elsewhere. A lot of people (not here but elsewhere) are very outraged, not because these are kids but because people are easily outraged over race relations.

My apathy toward the story as reported and people's responses is separate from the social significance of the alleged incident and how it should be handled.

The opposite is called racism by some social scientists but most distinguish that it is individual level racism, which has minimal social significance because it cannot be aggregated if the "racist(s)" is of the minority in power. Racism and hate crimes targeting whites occur in limited contexts and are extremely rare because, as you implied, whites are the majority in power and in population size. Moreover, racism is more covert than overt and Blacks would have a difficult time finding contexts in which they could covertly (as well as overtly) victimize whites.

More importantly, I was wondering what chip Kevlar was trying to shoulder. This thread is about alleged discrimination and possibly racism. What's the point of bringing another incident into the mix? Just to prove a point?

some people love the past, so why not?

I think that saying they cancelled their "memberships" is a bit over the top and improper spin by the AP. Membership in a private club is something individuals apply for. These children were being permitted to swim there for the summer ONLY - on Mondays ONLY - because of an agreement a camp they were attending made with the club. It was more like having a day pass.

Not that I don't think the whole thing is ridiculous and racist, but the appropriate terminology should be used. Implying these children were "members" inflames the situation further.