HUSKER 37

Enhance

Enhance

Administrator
All, wanted to have a brief discussion about this post @HUSKER 37 shared in the Michigan look-a-like thread last week. It was a photo of an African American player next to a bottle of Aunt Jemima syrup.

I did a dive into his history - he's been warned and suspended before for posting racist materials on the board. Although it was a few years ago now, it appears this most recent transgression is a sign of persistent behavior. Posting something racist on the board once is bad enough, but doing it twice? They received 30 days the last time but I think a much longer vacation is appropriate now.

However, I wonder if a permanent ban is on the table here because of this being the second example of posting racist materials. That, to me, is one of the more egregious board violations and has absolutely no place here. Is that too harsh? I wanted to get extra opinions here because this is a longer-term member and not just some new face.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did not recognize the issue with this post, at first. If there was racial connotations, they are inconspicuous. I would not have a problem banning a member how demonstrated repeatedly they are willing to post racist content, no matter the time in between posts.

Do you know what was the racist post that this member got warned about previously?

 
The best I have is knapplc's explanation for why he gave HUSKER 37 a 30-day suspension:

HUSKER 37, your account is being suspended for 30 days for your post in the Shed.

I don't know what you hoped to accomplish with that post. Was it to see if people would actually "out" themselves as bigots by agreeing with the "essay"? If so, to what end? Is it to see whether people would react as they should and condemn it? Again, to what end?

 The reality is that the only thing that this kind of post will do is to create a major flame war if one member is stupid enough to endorse the "essay". And that's the way we view your post - an attempt to troll the board and inflame the members. Again, if you can't recognize what is appropriate content, your next infraction will result in a ban. There is simply no reason for posting that kind of material.
Click to expand...


There is a history of racism associated with the Aunt Jemima product but it would largely be subtle or unnoticed by a fair portion of people. But, IMO, blatant racism or subtle racism still boils down to being racist. I can't see any other reason for someone to post an Aunt Jemima bottle next to a photo of a black person without trying to do draw a negative/inappropriate association to their race.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is a tough one, but I agree that it's hard to explain why else he'd post something like this other than to come across as a bigot. Really poor choice on his part in my opinion. I'd be interested to see what everyone else thinks about this? 

 
Would be curious about what the actual post was that resulted in the previous warning.  It's not in Offending Posts or Hidden Posts that I can find.  It's been five years ago and I'd want to know a little more about the content/context before saying this is a continuation of a previous behavior - especially from that long ago.

Also, intent is kind of hard to judge.  It might be in poor taste but I'm not sure it would have to be racist.  Could be, but maybe not.  

Would that mean we'd have to get rid of all the dreadlocks/Whoopi/etc. ones that show up from time to time.

 
I am willing to entertain the notion that the member posted a comparison of the Michigan player to Aunt Jemima because he/she felt there was a similarity in their facial features, which is the intent of a look-a-like thread. Personally, I was ignorant to the racial history with the Aunt Jemima image (other than it depicts a black woman). To be honest, it is really difficult to determine the intent of that post. I could see how someone also ignorant on the racial connotations could have made that mistake.

You have brought up a really valid point in that this member has posted overt racial content before. That does change the context for me to think it may not have been so innocent. Still, it is hard for me to ban someone without knowing intent. If we do not ban/suspend him/her, I think it would be good to PM the member and add a warning (with or without points) to the account as a reference to this issue.

 
Thanks for the feedback everyone. A few additional thoughts after reading some of the remarks here.

First, I think intent is relevant, but also moderately inconsequential. Being ignorant to the racist nature of a post doesn't really excuse it. However, I will admit that I can't conclusively say what the intent was here. He received 30 days for something that knapplc considered as 'thinly-veiled racism' so I was largely going off of precedent. The only two conclusions I can draw are that HUSKER 37 was either ignorant to what they posted or finds racist materials humorous on Huskerboard.

Second, I draw a distinction between a player with dreadlocks being linked to Whoopi and a black player being tied to a bottle of Aunt Jemima syrup. The closest analogy I can make to the latter is if somebody posted a photo of a black player and then a photo of the classic 'Jim Crow' propaganda image. Aunt Jemima is nowhere near as blatant as Jim Crow but there is a cataloged history of racism associated with Aunt Jemima.

Lastly, as BRI mentioned, I think this is (at the very least) a poor choice on his part. I still feel some form of a suspension is still necessary to illustrate that what was done can't happen on here, but the evidence may not support a permanent ban.

 
Enhance said:
First, I think intent is relevant, but also moderately inconsequential. Being ignorant to the racist nature of a post doesn't really excuse it. However, I will admit that I can't conclusively say what the intent was here. He received 30 days for something that knapplc considered as 'thinly-veiled racism' so I was largely going off of precedent. The only two conclusions I can draw are that HUSKER 37 was either ignorant to what they posted or finds racist materials humorous on Huskerboard.
Click to expand...


I think this is flat wrong.  I think intent is the most important thing.  Otherwise, all it is is "that offends me so you have to stop".

Now there are obvious exceptions for things that are widely known - swastikas, black face, etc.  It would be very hard to plead ignorance on something like that.  But on most things I think it's entirely possible to not know some history behind something.  I saw that post awhile ago and I though it probably would be questionable but I don't know that it's inherently racist.  Maybe it is but I don't know that.

It's basically like ESPN firing the NBA announcer a couple years ago because he said Jeremy Lin had a "chink in the armor" on something.  It is completely obvious that he was using a well known phrase that has nothing to do with race to describe a shortcoming.  But because that one word can also be used in a derogatory way, everyone threw a fit and he was fired.  There is no way that he meant it that way and it's not like he was just making up the phrase.  I could see some sort of suspension as a way for them to apologize but they fired him for something that he absolutely had no intention of doing.  That's ridiculous.

 
I see what you're saying but these things often come down to context and interpretation, Mav. Our society punishes people all the time for things they've done wrong whether or not they knew they were wrong at the time. It's true in criminal proceedings and in examples like the ones you mentioned. It may not always be fair but it's done in an attempt to be consistent and judicious. In some examples, I agree that it's unfair. In others, not so much.

As it relates to this discussion, the overall context feels worthy of a short-term suspension. Seems like there's enough smoke here to suggest it's more than an innocent guffaw.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Enhance said:
I see what you're saying but these things often come down to context and interpretation, Mav. Our society punishes people all the time for things they've done wrong whether or not they knew they were wrong at the time. It's true in criminal proceedings and in examples like the ones you mentioned. It may not always be fair but it's done in an attempt to be consistent and judicious. In some examples, I agree that it's unfair. In others, not so much.
Click to expand...


That doesn't make it right.

As it relates to this discussion, the overall context feels worthy of a short-term suspension. Seems like there's enough smoke here to suggest it's more than an innocent guffaw.
Click to expand...


I don't know what context you have.  There is explicitly no context with the previous warning.

 
Mavric said:
That doesn't make it right.

I don't know what context you have.  There is explicitly no context with the previous warning.
Click to expand...
That this member was suspended previously for posting racist content is the context. Even if we do not know the details of that content, we should be able to use the verbiage of the previous warning to extrapolate that.

 
Mavric said:
That doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...


I don't know what you want me to tell you. Being ignorant is rarely a good enough excuse for getting away with something. It certainly didn't help me avoid trouble as a kid and it doesn't get us out of many situations as adults, either.

I don't know what context you have.  There is explicitly no context with the previous warning.
Click to expand...


HUSKER 37 posted a photo of a black person next to a bottle of Aunt Jemima syrup. I believe that's all the context we need. I recommend looking up 'Aunt Jemima' and 'racism' if you haven't already. The player looks nothing like that bottle. He could've chosen any number of super market products but he chose Aunt Jemima. The only association is that they're both black and Aunt Jemima has a documented history of racism attached to it.

A few days off to consider the gravity of what they posted seems more than amicable.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top