March 31, 2008
Everyone Needs Their Daddy!
“Even today we still have the tradition continuing on. So, then you have to wonder: "what good would a father do?" A father, candidly speaking, would only end up encouraging his boy to do gang-like things” (Seven Tense, “No One Has a Dad, and No One Needs One”).
To even consider, let alone pursue this limited ideology is plain dangerous. For one, fathers embody the masculine model which men are able to apply themselves to.
Therefore, I continue with my argument that, “Rather, there is a continuation of the vicious, violent cycle which has made our new, ambiguous masculine ‘model’”. Our masculine model is now ambiguous because no longer is there the Mr. King ‘figures’ or concrete fathers. Instead these children are left to control the model on their own; hence, the ambiguity and overall perversion of masculinity into ‘distorted hooliganism’. The once innocent pranks and safe-guarded rites-of-passage which Stalky and his boys benefitted from are no longer prevalent, much to the reasoning of there no longer being a Mr. King figure—a father type, who is the perfect amalgamation of structured violence as well as a resource of stability. Without the latter characteristic (stability), what society produces are vicious hooligans, ready to ‘take it a step further’ by inverting themselves from structured masculinity into complete chaos, all because of the absence of ‘daddy’.
Next,
“It is encoded into their brains whether or not they will become hooligans simply by the way they are raised and brought up by parents. And the only way to counteract that would be to completely change the way we raise our boys, teaching them that what was once masculine is no longer the way” (Seven Tense, “No One Has a Dad, and No One Needs One”).
For one, this is simply untrue. It is not about changing parenting styles; instead, it is about the father trying to stay true to his pre-figured role as someone who watches from a distance, giving the needed security to his son so that one day he may be able to surpass his own father and achieve his own masculinity. However, this achieved masculinity, because of the father’s presence, is structured, healthy and lasting, oppose to dangerous and limited, as a hooligan proves to be, again, many times because of a lack of this father-son dynamic.
Chavette
March 27, 2008
No One Has a Dad, and No One Needs One
A few posts ago, by co-blogger, Chavette, posted an interesting essay on the absence of men, specifically fathers, in the lives of hooligans (See "Where's Daddy" below). I thought perhaps if I rationalized it long enough in my mind I might have drawn an adequate conclusion out of the mess that it was, but I found myself sadly mistaken. You see, Chavette, I understand the likely connection you would draw given your evidence, but this post seems to lack something in the way of a conclusion, or rather a decent conclusion.
It may be possible that being fatherless can be connected to hooliganism, you've proved that adequately; however, you fail to continue mindlessly repeating questions long enough to decide whether or not having a father would make any difference. Allow me to fill in the gap and give you and answer.
What are men usually like, historically speaking? They are usually quite aggressive, and tactless, in the way they perform their actions. This was what separated men from women, and fathers everywhere were expected to encourage it in their boys, to harden them up, to make them more manly. Even today we still have the tradition continuing on. So, then you have to wonder: "what good would a father do?" A father, candidly speaking, would only end up encouraging his boy to do gang-like things.
How many times has a boy out there been taught to "fight back and stand up for yourself"? Standing up for yourself is fine, but fighting isn't. The idea that the world of men should operate on an "eye for an eye" principle was thought of by none other than men trying to raise other men.
How many times has a boy in our society been told to "show them what you're made of" and "make your mark" in the world? If you've got to show someone something, it usually means you've got something to prove. A boy doesn't start thinking about this until he's told to do so by his father. He starts to wonder what's wrong with him. What has he got to prove, and how is he going to do it? Well, he'll never "make his mark" by beating someone up. That's not going to be anything lasting. What about beating up something that isn't human, like that window, that house, or that car? Yes, the boy realizes, those would stand as lasting proof exactly what I'm made of. I'll make my marks on these things in order to make my mark on society.
The presence of a father will do nothing for the hooligan child. If anything it will make matters worse than ever. There is nothing a parent can do for their child that will help them avoid a gang's life. It is encoded into their brains whether or not they will become hooligans simply by the way they are raised and brought up by parents. And the only way to counteract that would be to completely change the way we raise our boys, teaching them that what was once masculine is no longer the way. We would have to completely alienate the concept of masculinity that generations of boys and men have grown up with. Of course, we already know that wouldn't help an ounce, because society has already done that and to no avail.
Perhaps it was always supposed to be this way. Perhaps hooligans will always exist, if only to show us the error of our species and its ways.
It may be possible that being fatherless can be connected to hooliganism, you've proved that adequately; however, you fail to continue mindlessly repeating questions long enough to decide whether or not having a father would make any difference. Allow me to fill in the gap and give you and answer.
What are men usually like, historically speaking? They are usually quite aggressive, and tactless, in the way they perform their actions. This was what separated men from women, and fathers everywhere were expected to encourage it in their boys, to harden them up, to make them more manly. Even today we still have the tradition continuing on. So, then you have to wonder: "what good would a father do?" A father, candidly speaking, would only end up encouraging his boy to do gang-like things.
How many times has a boy out there been taught to "fight back and stand up for yourself"? Standing up for yourself is fine, but fighting isn't. The idea that the world of men should operate on an "eye for an eye" principle was thought of by none other than men trying to raise other men.
How many times has a boy in our society been told to "show them what you're made of" and "make your mark" in the world? If you've got to show someone something, it usually means you've got something to prove. A boy doesn't start thinking about this until he's told to do so by his father. He starts to wonder what's wrong with him. What has he got to prove, and how is he going to do it? Well, he'll never "make his mark" by beating someone up. That's not going to be anything lasting. What about beating up something that isn't human, like that window, that house, or that car? Yes, the boy realizes, those would stand as lasting proof exactly what I'm made of. I'll make my marks on these things in order to make my mark on society.
The presence of a father will do nothing for the hooligan child. If anything it will make matters worse than ever. There is nothing a parent can do for their child that will help them avoid a gang's life. It is encoded into their brains whether or not they will become hooligans simply by the way they are raised and brought up by parents. And the only way to counteract that would be to completely change the way we raise our boys, teaching them that what was once masculine is no longer the way. We would have to completely alienate the concept of masculinity that generations of boys and men have grown up with. Of course, we already know that wouldn't help an ounce, because society has already done that and to no avail.
Perhaps it was always supposed to be this way. Perhaps hooligans will always exist, if only to show us the error of our species and its ways.
March 15, 2008
Block Watching
In a recent article, woman revealed that her car was vandalized in her drive way. She immediately came to the conclusion that it was young individuals who were responsible for the mess. She claims that the damage to her car represents anger, since amateur psychology is so accurate she must be correct.
In the article it mentions she did not see who had done it however her immediate response was to teenagers and more than likely she believes MALE teenagers are responsible, although this is not mentioned in the article. This is another way individuals in society respond to moments such as these. They use stereotypes to interpret the event. The media negatively portrays teenagers, therefore teenagers must be responsible. It could not be a drunken adult. It could not be someone she had angered at one point or time. It MUST be a teenager.
Furthermore the article goes to cite someone else from the neighbourhood. This person goes to say that events such as these happen in a pattern that seem to ebb and flow. Thus by this statement, this sort of thing happens often enough that it can be charted and patterned it would seem. Once again with this kind of thinking the problem is focused on the young, as what respectable adult would damage another persons property. Once again ignoring the examples cited above. However another interesting thing is the term neighbourhood. This term is vague in its definition, as it does not define how large the area of the neighbourhood is, how many people live there. It is a simple designation that people use to imply that unity or how close to events occurred, such as this. Why this is important is simple. This event could have happened blocks apart, however due to the designation of neighbourhood, it may as well have bee a next door neighbour that was vandalized. Thus this creates a higher rate of frequency in an area that is actually true.
Finally the solution presented in the article is to be involved in a block watch. A block watch is a group of individuals who get together and police their own block. However studies have shown that people are unable to keep this program alive and it eventually parts and thus the block is more vulnerable as it lacks the safety net that everyone believes that they have.
Here is the link for those who are interested.
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=e70fe38b-ce80-45e2-99db-6daf49b7e4de&k=19787
In the article it mentions she did not see who had done it however her immediate response was to teenagers and more than likely she believes MALE teenagers are responsible, although this is not mentioned in the article. This is another way individuals in society respond to moments such as these. They use stereotypes to interpret the event. The media negatively portrays teenagers, therefore teenagers must be responsible. It could not be a drunken adult. It could not be someone she had angered at one point or time. It MUST be a teenager.
Furthermore the article goes to cite someone else from the neighbourhood. This person goes to say that events such as these happen in a pattern that seem to ebb and flow. Thus by this statement, this sort of thing happens often enough that it can be charted and patterned it would seem. Once again with this kind of thinking the problem is focused on the young, as what respectable adult would damage another persons property. Once again ignoring the examples cited above. However another interesting thing is the term neighbourhood. This term is vague in its definition, as it does not define how large the area of the neighbourhood is, how many people live there. It is a simple designation that people use to imply that unity or how close to events occurred, such as this. Why this is important is simple. This event could have happened blocks apart, however due to the designation of neighbourhood, it may as well have bee a next door neighbour that was vandalized. Thus this creates a higher rate of frequency in an area that is actually true.
Finally the solution presented in the article is to be involved in a block watch. A block watch is a group of individuals who get together and police their own block. However studies have shown that people are unable to keep this program alive and it eventually parts and thus the block is more vulnerable as it lacks the safety net that everyone believes that they have.
Here is the link for those who are interested.
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=e70fe38b-ce80-45e2-99db-6daf49b7e4de&k=19787
March 11, 2008
Bad Boys Last Good Males
I recently came across an interesting article by Patricia Vettel Tom that analyzes some photographs that Bruce Davidson had taken in 1958. The article entitled Bad Boys was published in a 1997 art journal and takes an in depth look at the gang culture portrayed in Davidson’s photos. On top of that, Tom goes on to relate the pictures to ideas of anti-conformity and outlaw masculinity. Her notions and ideas are not only pertinent to the late 1950’s, they ring true for the 90’s when she wrote it, and remain valid even today. If you are able to separate gangsters and thugs from their criminality, upon close inspection, they may just be the last real masculine males.
“Man is a rebel by nature who cannot conform”
Tom’s article raises a point: conformity is bogus and emasculating; if you want to be a sheep and follow the herd then you are a sheep and not a man. Makes sense. Gangsters may be criminal in their anti-conformity but at least they are doing something to preserve their masculinity. Tom quoted Norman Mailer in her article, saying:
“If their conversation runs the predictable riverbed of sex, gang war, drugs, [and] weapons, well, at least they live out a part of their conversational obsession, which is more than one can say for the quiet, inhibited, middle-aged desperadoes of the corporation and the suburbs.”
Thugs, rebels, cut-ups, gangsters, they have the courage and guile to walk on the other side. Maybe we are all a little bit jealous of these people, not only because they seem to have money, cars and girls, but because they truly possess the masculine qualities that we can only claim to have.
“[G]ang culture provides a space for active masculinity, a site in which to play warrior”
People fear criminals and thugs because you are never quite sure what they are capable of; they have no fear but manage to instill it in us. They are warriors of the street, fighting for their own, while we are part of the herd, slaves to the “man”. It seems strange that the punks corrupting our streets are the new model for masculinity, the reincarnates of Stalky, but that is the way it is. They have more in common with the old school masculine world than any straight shooting “good” citizen could ever dream of. They are courageous and cunning, they have the will to rebel, they have coded speech, tightly knit-groups, they are masculine. Maybe it is time to look up your local crack slinging chapter and start wearing gang colours in an attempt to redeem some masculine qualities that may have gotten lost in the stacks of paper piling up from your desk job, or forgotten about after countless hours of gaming.
Article:
Tom, Patricia Vettel. "Bad Boys."Art Journal; Summer97, Vol. 56 Issue 2, p69, 6p, 5bw
-SS
“Man is a rebel by nature who cannot conform”
Tom’s article raises a point: conformity is bogus and emasculating; if you want to be a sheep and follow the herd then you are a sheep and not a man. Makes sense. Gangsters may be criminal in their anti-conformity but at least they are doing something to preserve their masculinity. Tom quoted Norman Mailer in her article, saying:
“If their conversation runs the predictable riverbed of sex, gang war, drugs, [and] weapons, well, at least they live out a part of their conversational obsession, which is more than one can say for the quiet, inhibited, middle-aged desperadoes of the corporation and the suburbs.”
Thugs, rebels, cut-ups, gangsters, they have the courage and guile to walk on the other side. Maybe we are all a little bit jealous of these people, not only because they seem to have money, cars and girls, but because they truly possess the masculine qualities that we can only claim to have.
“[G]ang culture provides a space for active masculinity, a site in which to play warrior”
People fear criminals and thugs because you are never quite sure what they are capable of; they have no fear but manage to instill it in us. They are warriors of the street, fighting for their own, while we are part of the herd, slaves to the “man”. It seems strange that the punks corrupting our streets are the new model for masculinity, the reincarnates of Stalky, but that is the way it is. They have more in common with the old school masculine world than any straight shooting “good” citizen could ever dream of. They are courageous and cunning, they have the will to rebel, they have coded speech, tightly knit-groups, they are masculine. Maybe it is time to look up your local crack slinging chapter and start wearing gang colours in an attempt to redeem some masculine qualities that may have gotten lost in the stacks of paper piling up from your desk job, or forgotten about after countless hours of gaming.
Article:
Tom, Patricia Vettel. "Bad Boys."Art Journal; Summer97, Vol. 56 Issue 2, p69, 6p, 5bw
-SS
March 10, 2008
Where's Daddy?
The absence of fathers
With frightening regularity, young black men are shooting at and being shot by one another in Toronto. Yet few people are talking about the conditions in which many of the shooters and the shot at are growing up. They are being raised without fathers in communities in which gangs promise the lure not only of extra cash but of affirming the young men's budding sense of masculinity and of belonging to something greater than themselves. Meanwhile, community leaders are grasping at useless symbols. The University of Toronto is proposing to scrap its century-old sport-shooting range. Ontario's Attorney-General wants a national ban on handguns (which are already tightly controlled).
The vicious cycle that affects young black men is familiar by now from countless urban centres in the United States. Economist Ronald Mincy of New York's Columbia University, who is black and grew up fatherless, writes of a generation of inner-city men who drop out of school and are thus poor marriage prospects. Unmarried, they are unlikely to stay connected with their children. Uneducated, they are not likely to find good jobs, since the decent-paying, low-skilled jobs have mostly disappeared. As for the low-level jobs that immigrants take, Prof. Mincy says young black men don't want those because they are used to a higher standard of living on welfare.
Even the booming job market of the past 15 years hasn't helped young black men. In American inner cities, more than half drop out of high school. In 2004, 72 per cent of black males in their 20s who had dropped out of high school were jobless; the figure includes those in jail and those who were free but not looking for work. By comparison, just 34 per cent of white high-school dropouts were jobless. If high-school graduates are included, half of black men in their 20s were jobless.
Prof. Mincy is one of countless voices, black and white, in the United States raising the issue of father-absence. At a time when nearly 50 per cent of all black children in Canada have just one parent in the home, compared with slightly under 20 per cent of Canadian children generally, who is raising the issue in Canada? Where are the fathers? Where are the programs to encourage responsible fatherhood? Talk about fathers is as absent as the fathers themselves.
"Black people will never reach economic parity if black children have to depend on one income and white children depend on two," writes Prof. Mincy. That's as true in Canada as it is in the United States, but you wouldn't know it from the silence.
I came across this article in the Globe and Mail newspaper, describing the conditions behind the rise of gang culture and individual male on male violence. Although this article concentrates exclusively on Black Males, I cant help but apply this issue to our general polemic. Is the absent father a prerequisite for a dismal outcome of performed masculinity? Is the reasoning behind the countless men from fairly wealthy homes committing such heinous crimes versus simple tom-foolery evident in Stalky Model & Co. due to this same absence of a father-figure? Thus, I continue with my question, is the damaged home the answer to where we went wrong? Is it these very cracks in our home foundation which has contributed to a move away from the innocent rebellion present in the Browing school, to a lethal, new age where continuous violence makes a man. In short, there is no graduation from this stage in maturing. Rather, there is a continuation of the vicious, violent cycle which has made our new, ambiguous masculine ‘model’.
With frightening regularity, young black men are shooting at and being shot by one another in Toronto. Yet few people are talking about the conditions in which many of the shooters and the shot at are growing up. They are being raised without fathers in communities in which gangs promise the lure not only of extra cash but of affirming the young men's budding sense of masculinity and of belonging to something greater than themselves. Meanwhile, community leaders are grasping at useless symbols. The University of Toronto is proposing to scrap its century-old sport-shooting range. Ontario's Attorney-General wants a national ban on handguns (which are already tightly controlled).
The vicious cycle that affects young black men is familiar by now from countless urban centres in the United States. Economist Ronald Mincy of New York's Columbia University, who is black and grew up fatherless, writes of a generation of inner-city men who drop out of school and are thus poor marriage prospects. Unmarried, they are unlikely to stay connected with their children. Uneducated, they are not likely to find good jobs, since the decent-paying, low-skilled jobs have mostly disappeared. As for the low-level jobs that immigrants take, Prof. Mincy says young black men don't want those because they are used to a higher standard of living on welfare.
Even the booming job market of the past 15 years hasn't helped young black men. In American inner cities, more than half drop out of high school. In 2004, 72 per cent of black males in their 20s who had dropped out of high school were jobless; the figure includes those in jail and those who were free but not looking for work. By comparison, just 34 per cent of white high-school dropouts were jobless. If high-school graduates are included, half of black men in their 20s were jobless.
Prof. Mincy is one of countless voices, black and white, in the United States raising the issue of father-absence. At a time when nearly 50 per cent of all black children in Canada have just one parent in the home, compared with slightly under 20 per cent of Canadian children generally, who is raising the issue in Canada? Where are the fathers? Where are the programs to encourage responsible fatherhood? Talk about fathers is as absent as the fathers themselves.
"Black people will never reach economic parity if black children have to depend on one income and white children depend on two," writes Prof. Mincy. That's as true in Canada as it is in the United States, but you wouldn't know it from the silence.
I came across this article in the Globe and Mail newspaper, describing the conditions behind the rise of gang culture and individual male on male violence. Although this article concentrates exclusively on Black Males, I cant help but apply this issue to our general polemic. Is the absent father a prerequisite for a dismal outcome of performed masculinity? Is the reasoning behind the countless men from fairly wealthy homes committing such heinous crimes versus simple tom-foolery evident in Stalky Model & Co. due to this same absence of a father-figure? Thus, I continue with my question, is the damaged home the answer to where we went wrong? Is it these very cracks in our home foundation which has contributed to a move away from the innocent rebellion present in the Browing school, to a lethal, new age where continuous violence makes a man. In short, there is no graduation from this stage in maturing. Rather, there is a continuation of the vicious, violent cycle which has made our new, ambiguous masculine ‘model’.
March 9, 2008
Wanted: People for Organization -- Must Hate IOC
When one is asked to characterize the actions of a gang-member there are obviously certain elements which would show up on any person's list, such as violence and vandalism. As the first point needs no explanation, I wish to address the second. You see, it is quite easy to view a site of the city which has been "tagged" by various different styles of graffiti and say it has been "vandalized." One can also just simply say a place has been "vandalized" when it's outer appearance is scarred by unwanted or ugly elements, such as broken windows, soiled foundations, or posters of propaganda. Eventually, when one begins to notice a specific pattern of vandalization, it becomes quite easy to associate such acts with the people who do them. Instead of calling them individuals we begin to ascribe them the name of "vandals" for their association with this violence of place.
If we are lucky, this is where the associative process will end. The vandal will be apprehended sooner or later and this violence will end. It is when this hooligan is left to his own devices for far too long that a problem begins to develop. He/she may find a kinship with other members of his/her kind. A group of vandals may group together and begin a process of widespread vandalization, attacking any number of locations throughout the city, their violence-of-place only kept in check by the number of members in the group and how little they can accomplish at any one time.
The possibility for greater danger is not absent from this situation, however. When the group eventually becomes too large to control how long will it be before one vandal chooses to scar a human instead of a building? The line separating a group of vandals and a gang is indeed a thin red one, and it can be crossed with only a modicum of effort. Violence of place is not so different from violence of man in that they both show such reckless disregard for society, its laws, and its people. How many times has a brick been thrown at a building; how many windows are broken by baseball bats; how many mailboxes are intentionally run over? How easily could you mistake vandalism for gang activity if these hooligans were vandalizing people instead of objects?
I can think of one particular group of people today which is exhibiting startling similarity to this criminal evolution. To illustrate, I present this citation from 24 Hours newspaper (Tuesday, February 26th edition):
There has been a noticeable spike in ... vandalism. The Omega countdown clock, Premier Gordon Campbell’s riding office, a “Welcome to Vancouver” sign near Hastings Park and several Royal Bank of Canada branches have been recent targets.
I have kept the most important words of this phrase intentionally absent, just so my readers may be able to imagine how vandal-like this group's actions are, how so like any other band of petty hooligans. Though for any keen reader of the papers you will have no doubt already filled in the blanks; however, for those of you less inclined to daily reading let me continue with my final damnable piece of evidence, this time, a picture:
Yes, yes, it is the Anti Poverty Committee to which I am referring. This ragtag bunch of vandals have progressively been upping the ante on their antics sine day one, and for the most part their tireless tirades and voluminous vandalizations have been only just tolerable. As Vancouver's hosting of the 2010 Olympic Games draws nearer, however, their actions have escalated to outright threats against key member of the Olympic Committee. The picture above is the epitome of that conclusion: a profusion of large posters sprout up around downtown Vancouver, each bearing the ominous decree, "Dead IOC Prez." Upon further examination, one also notices a grand serpent, bearing all the markers of Olympic authority along its body, being deftly beheaded by a masked ninja with a horde of cheering individuals behind him.
This is where the APC feels out the boundaries outlined by that thin red line. Before this, they were just a large group of humbled hooligans; however, now they have begun to show so many of the trademark signs of a group that is going out of control. As I have said, it would only take one violent act for the entire group to finish their criminal evolution, and posters like this are the undeniable precursor to that act. Why else would Vancouver's finest be out in full force on the exact date and time of International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge’s arrival?
Let us be both practical and serious. No one would take such a threat lightly, and assuredly no one would stand idle in light of its existence. On the contrary, they would certainly act. My greatest concern, however, is which party is doing the acting? The Police are doing all they can just to stand there and protect the head of that black serpent; but what actions are the Anti Poverty Committee likely to take next? If the pattern is anything to go by, God forbid, then I expect the next threat will not be left unfulfilled.
We are witnessing the evolution of a gang. You cannot deny that the Anti Poverty Committee has taken drastic measures to communicate its point to the city; and while that goal is an admirable one, what will their goals be known as once a member of the Olympic Committee truly is assassinated like some base animal? Look at this group of people. What do you see? Do you see a responsible organization, or simply organized crime?
If we are lucky, this is where the associative process will end. The vandal will be apprehended sooner or later and this violence will end. It is when this hooligan is left to his own devices for far too long that a problem begins to develop. He/she may find a kinship with other members of his/her kind. A group of vandals may group together and begin a process of widespread vandalization, attacking any number of locations throughout the city, their violence-of-place only kept in check by the number of members in the group and how little they can accomplish at any one time.
The possibility for greater danger is not absent from this situation, however. When the group eventually becomes too large to control how long will it be before one vandal chooses to scar a human instead of a building? The line separating a group of vandals and a gang is indeed a thin red one, and it can be crossed with only a modicum of effort. Violence of place is not so different from violence of man in that they both show such reckless disregard for society, its laws, and its people. How many times has a brick been thrown at a building; how many windows are broken by baseball bats; how many mailboxes are intentionally run over? How easily could you mistake vandalism for gang activity if these hooligans were vandalizing people instead of objects?
I can think of one particular group of people today which is exhibiting startling similarity to this criminal evolution. To illustrate, I present this citation from 24 Hours newspaper (Tuesday, February 26th edition):
There has been a noticeable spike in ... vandalism. The Omega countdown clock, Premier Gordon Campbell’s riding office, a “Welcome to Vancouver” sign near Hastings Park and several Royal Bank of Canada branches have been recent targets.
I have kept the most important words of this phrase intentionally absent, just so my readers may be able to imagine how vandal-like this group's actions are, how so like any other band of petty hooligans. Though for any keen reader of the papers you will have no doubt already filled in the blanks; however, for those of you less inclined to daily reading let me continue with my final damnable piece of evidence, this time, a picture:
Yes, yes, it is the Anti Poverty Committee to which I am referring. This ragtag bunch of vandals have progressively been upping the ante on their antics sine day one, and for the most part their tireless tirades and voluminous vandalizations have been only just tolerable. As Vancouver's hosting of the 2010 Olympic Games draws nearer, however, their actions have escalated to outright threats against key member of the Olympic Committee. The picture above is the epitome of that conclusion: a profusion of large posters sprout up around downtown Vancouver, each bearing the ominous decree, "Dead IOC Prez." Upon further examination, one also notices a grand serpent, bearing all the markers of Olympic authority along its body, being deftly beheaded by a masked ninja with a horde of cheering individuals behind him.
This is where the APC feels out the boundaries outlined by that thin red line. Before this, they were just a large group of humbled hooligans; however, now they have begun to show so many of the trademark signs of a group that is going out of control. As I have said, it would only take one violent act for the entire group to finish their criminal evolution, and posters like this are the undeniable precursor to that act. Why else would Vancouver's finest be out in full force on the exact date and time of International Olympic Committee president Jacques Rogge’s arrival?
Let us be both practical and serious. No one would take such a threat lightly, and assuredly no one would stand idle in light of its existence. On the contrary, they would certainly act. My greatest concern, however, is which party is doing the acting? The Police are doing all they can just to stand there and protect the head of that black serpent; but what actions are the Anti Poverty Committee likely to take next? If the pattern is anything to go by, God forbid, then I expect the next threat will not be left unfulfilled.
We are witnessing the evolution of a gang. You cannot deny that the Anti Poverty Committee has taken drastic measures to communicate its point to the city; and while that goal is an admirable one, what will their goals be known as once a member of the Olympic Committee truly is assassinated like some base animal? Look at this group of people. What do you see? Do you see a responsible organization, or simply organized crime?
~~Seven Tense
March 3, 2008
Blame it on the Post-Modern?
While trying to narrow down my research, I came across a study co-produced by Delbert Joe and Norman Robinson, both specialists of the socio-educational issues impending Vancouver’s current gang culture. Their study includes an in depth analysis of gang culture in Downtown Vancouver’s, Chinatown, which is summarized in their article aptly named, “Chinatown’s Immigrant Class; The New Young Warrior Class”. Their research pinpoints the problem of such gangs to the overflow in immigration during the 1960’s, “when both Canada and the United States adopted less restrictive immigration Laws, under which substantial numbers of poorly educated and disaffected Hong Kong youth began to enter Canada and the United States”.
I then thought to myself, why would immigrants trying to better their lives in Canada, turn to gangs and crime? However, it soon made sense, when I considered Alan Sillitoe’s Smith, the narrator of The Long Distance Runner. Like Smith, these hopeful immigrants turned gang members blame the system--the ‘in-laws’; they too have been mismanaged by ‘them’ and now in turn choose to be cunning in hopes of regaining an identity lost in their fight for acceptance--this fight is soon inverted from acceptance into the system to an on-going war to find an identity outside of it.
Joe and Robinson go on to characterize three socio-cultural antecedents which are identified as important in the development of Chinese Youth Gangs:
(1) the weakening among many Hong Kong immigrants of the traditional Chinese pattern of close parental guidance and supervision;
(2) the resultant emergence of youth peer-groups who challenge parental authority and Chinese values;
(3) the strong attraction of North American success symbols for gang members, and their perceived inability to achieve success through legitimate means because of difficulties in learning English.
With these three points in mind, we can (with confidence) assume that these young Chinese immigrants landed with hopes of betterment and instead, were faced with a broken system, unavailable to all people--especially immigrants, whose obstacles are two-fold: both trying to make it in a foreign place and re-establish a traditional atmosphere. I find (with experience) that the latter is often neglected; thus it is because of the lack of this traditional influence and structure that already apparent friction is further irritated.
It is soon after their arrival that these immigrants lust after identity, which is often mislead; therefore, gangs come to existence. This is the instance where Joe and Robinson pin-point the creation of a new identity: young warriors. Both researchers suggest that martial arts play a key role in many of these gangs, both for self-defense and offense. There is a militaristic theme and the enemy is the system--the government, other Canadians and often, Canadian-born Chinese.
However, I keep the question open: Is it the lack of traditional and conservative structure which breeds gangs and overall gang culture, or can this particular case be viewed as foreign to our overall discussion of where we went wrong…
Hope to hear some insight.
I then thought to myself, why would immigrants trying to better their lives in Canada, turn to gangs and crime? However, it soon made sense, when I considered Alan Sillitoe’s Smith, the narrator of The Long Distance Runner. Like Smith, these hopeful immigrants turned gang members blame the system--the ‘in-laws’; they too have been mismanaged by ‘them’ and now in turn choose to be cunning in hopes of regaining an identity lost in their fight for acceptance--this fight is soon inverted from acceptance into the system to an on-going war to find an identity outside of it.
Joe and Robinson go on to characterize three socio-cultural antecedents which are identified as important in the development of Chinese Youth Gangs:
(1) the weakening among many Hong Kong immigrants of the traditional Chinese pattern of close parental guidance and supervision;
(2) the resultant emergence of youth peer-groups who challenge parental authority and Chinese values;
(3) the strong attraction of North American success symbols for gang members, and their perceived inability to achieve success through legitimate means because of difficulties in learning English.
With these three points in mind, we can (with confidence) assume that these young Chinese immigrants landed with hopes of betterment and instead, were faced with a broken system, unavailable to all people--especially immigrants, whose obstacles are two-fold: both trying to make it in a foreign place and re-establish a traditional atmosphere. I find (with experience) that the latter is often neglected; thus it is because of the lack of this traditional influence and structure that already apparent friction is further irritated.
It is soon after their arrival that these immigrants lust after identity, which is often mislead; therefore, gangs come to existence. This is the instance where Joe and Robinson pin-point the creation of a new identity: young warriors. Both researchers suggest that martial arts play a key role in many of these gangs, both for self-defense and offense. There is a militaristic theme and the enemy is the system--the government, other Canadians and often, Canadian-born Chinese.
However, I keep the question open: Is it the lack of traditional and conservative structure which breeds gangs and overall gang culture, or can this particular case be viewed as foreign to our overall discussion of where we went wrong…
Hope to hear some insight.
Policing Their Own
If anyone remembers, I mentioned an article I had been looking for, well this week I found the article. The article was about setting up an aboriginal police force with the intent that their community would trust this police force and set a strong relationship with them and by extension the RCMP in general as well. This is a response to the high crime rates among that community.
Though the intent is both logical, and good, it also follows a set way of thought. First, it can be seen as the RCMP abandoning doing their duty there personally. Though this task force is apart of the RCMP, they are must respond to the aboriginal counsel and community rather than the RCMP themselves. Though the RCMP is going to be invovled in the Community Consultive Group that the Unit responds to, how involved they are going to be is another question entirely. The second thing that they are doing is by abandoning their role there, they are showing a lack of concern as they are handing the role of policing over to another inexperienced force.
Thus, this is one of society's responses to hooliganism. To wash their hands of the individuals and communities and let them fend for themselves. Hoping to hide from the problems that select communities generate by having them police themselves. Though once again they are involved in the CCG, the article does not specify the extent of their involvement and therefore that could mean there is little to no involvement, or hopefully they will be heavily involved in the Units movements. But either way I see this as a negative thing, as its a step towards cutting off a section of society, as they isolate them from the rest of society.
Here is the article for anyone interested.
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=c63e2508-3220-4fb5-99c7-171139bed60c&k=58739&p=2
Though the intent is both logical, and good, it also follows a set way of thought. First, it can be seen as the RCMP abandoning doing their duty there personally. Though this task force is apart of the RCMP, they are must respond to the aboriginal counsel and community rather than the RCMP themselves. Though the RCMP is going to be invovled in the Community Consultive Group that the Unit responds to, how involved they are going to be is another question entirely. The second thing that they are doing is by abandoning their role there, they are showing a lack of concern as they are handing the role of policing over to another inexperienced force.
Thus, this is one of society's responses to hooliganism. To wash their hands of the individuals and communities and let them fend for themselves. Hoping to hide from the problems that select communities generate by having them police themselves. Though once again they are involved in the CCG, the article does not specify the extent of their involvement and therefore that could mean there is little to no involvement, or hopefully they will be heavily involved in the Units movements. But either way I see this as a negative thing, as its a step towards cutting off a section of society, as they isolate them from the rest of society.
Here is the article for anyone interested.
http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=c63e2508-3220-4fb5-99c7-171139bed60c&k=58739&p=2
March 2, 2008
Blue Flags and Red Bandanas
I write this while listening to the inspirational rhymes and beats of the likes of G-Unit, Bun-B, Lil Wayne, and Snoop Dogg. These word wizards just have that certain panache when it comes to describing the nuances of thuggery, hustling, and gang life in general. They have the ability to romanticize a curb stomping or slinging crack in an alley in a way that very few can. Their music manages to make things that shock and appal regular people seem commonplace, cool, and masculine. The question that I hope to answer through the course of my blogs asks: is there a certain bit of old school masculinity, hidden amongst the violence and illegal activities, in gangs and individual thugs?
By old school masculinity I am referring to the widely accepted masculine qualities outlined in Kipling’s Stalky & Co. that were touched upon in an earlier blog.
“I keep a blue flag hanging out my backside but only on my left side, yeah that’s the Crip side” from Snoop Dogg’s, Drop it Like it’s Hot.
“Red bandana in my back pocket, I’m for real” from The Game’s One Night.
One such masculine trademark outlined in the Stalky Model is a close-knit group of friends. Thugs show incredible loyalty to their fellow gang members, so much in fact that they are willing to kill for their partners in crime. A lot of it has to do with the safety in numbers idea that is vitally important in a world of competitive drug trafficking and territorialisation. Part of being in a gang is knowing that someone will be there to cover your back in a time of need. Essentially this is an extremely masculine environment. Large groups comprised of (mostly) males work together to achieve a common (but criminal) goal, and in the process form loyalties and friendships with their gang and learn a deep hatred for anyone who wears the wrong colour or sells something on the wrong block.
“Took two drags off the blunts, and started breaking down the flag/The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods” from Wu Tang Clan’s, A Better Tomorrow.
Another trait that common gangsters have in common with Stalky and his gang is a shared or coded form of speech. Gangster rap is so laden with slang terms and created language that it is often difficult to even decipher. Real life street thugs who more often than not aren’t black millionaire rappers still share their own esoteric speech. More than likely it comes in the form of drug related dialogue, the part of their lives that they share and are passionate about. Grams, ounces, pounds, chronic, smack, ice, the list goes on.
When you look at the idea of a group of males forming friendships and working towards a common goal, sans violence and crime, it has the appearance of a wholesome masculine thing. Like Scouts gone bad. When breaking it down to its most simple level those thugs and their mates out there who are usually “known to the police” have something going that relates directly to model masculine ideologies. There are still many more aspects of the model to be analyzed, but this was a good a place as any to start, and now to stop.
-SS
By old school masculinity I am referring to the widely accepted masculine qualities outlined in Kipling’s Stalky & Co. that were touched upon in an earlier blog.
“I keep a blue flag hanging out my backside but only on my left side, yeah that’s the Crip side” from Snoop Dogg’s, Drop it Like it’s Hot.
“Red bandana in my back pocket, I’m for real” from The Game’s One Night.
One such masculine trademark outlined in the Stalky Model is a close-knit group of friends. Thugs show incredible loyalty to their fellow gang members, so much in fact that they are willing to kill for their partners in crime. A lot of it has to do with the safety in numbers idea that is vitally important in a world of competitive drug trafficking and territorialisation. Part of being in a gang is knowing that someone will be there to cover your back in a time of need. Essentially this is an extremely masculine environment. Large groups comprised of (mostly) males work together to achieve a common (but criminal) goal, and in the process form loyalties and friendships with their gang and learn a deep hatred for anyone who wears the wrong colour or sells something on the wrong block.
“Took two drags off the blunts, and started breaking down the flag/The blue is for the Crips, the red is for the Bloods” from Wu Tang Clan’s, A Better Tomorrow.
Another trait that common gangsters have in common with Stalky and his gang is a shared or coded form of speech. Gangster rap is so laden with slang terms and created language that it is often difficult to even decipher. Real life street thugs who more often than not aren’t black millionaire rappers still share their own esoteric speech. More than likely it comes in the form of drug related dialogue, the part of their lives that they share and are passionate about. Grams, ounces, pounds, chronic, smack, ice, the list goes on.
When you look at the idea of a group of males forming friendships and working towards a common goal, sans violence and crime, it has the appearance of a wholesome masculine thing. Like Scouts gone bad. When breaking it down to its most simple level those thugs and their mates out there who are usually “known to the police” have something going that relates directly to model masculine ideologies. There are still many more aspects of the model to be analyzed, but this was a good a place as any to start, and now to stop.
-SS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)