I love this; have you read about Atlanta's effort to ban saggy pants in public?
It's obviously a controversial measure, and I'm of mixed feelings about it, nothing of which has to do with denying a desire to see the stupid baggy pants syndrome removed from public sight.
But I do struggle with it. Consider that wearing the baggy sagging jeans started with young black males as a tribute to those in prison, so it is in a way a form of political protest. What can be more patriotic than dissent?
I'm reading an article with comments from Debbie Seagrave, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Georgia:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070823/ap_on_fe_st/atlanta_sagging_pants
"Seagraves said any legislation that creates a dress code would not survive a court challenge. She said the law could not be enforced in a nondiscriminatory way because it targets something that came out of the black youth culture."
"This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling," Seagraves said.
Multiculturalism at its best! If a behavior --any behavior, even something as low as walking around with your pants falling down-- represents a "cultural" expression by a group, especially a minority group, then it MUST be a good thing, and cannot be judged.
You’re supposed to believe --condescendingly so-- that the inarticulate thug and the freelance slut are young black people in their natural state and in need of legal protection.
And so, we observe how indecency (defined by white, middle-class values, of course) and low trash culture (a term used by the dominant oppressor class to create “the other”) is transformed into a victimology. Efforts at public decency are examples of white oppression. Which is ironic since Councilman C.T. Martin, who is pushing the legislation, is black, but unauthentically so. He was brainwashed by them white folk into profiling his own kind.
6 comments:
Quote ...She said the law could not be enforced in a nondiscriminatory way because it targets something that came out of the black youth culture.
"This is a racial profiling bill that promotes and establishes a framework for an additional type of racial profiling," Seagraves said.
Ah yes, the mystery "framework". I'm sure her larger argument might have some merit, but as for claiming that a bill proposing a ban against some form of dress is based on racial prejudice...that just isn't something I believe you could prove.
In some cases, for example, the full hijab... worn for a drivers license, that's where the state has an interest in mandating some basic requisites regarding dress.
This one... where I'd love to see that obvious display of allegiance to a subculture which celebrates degeneracy banned from public spaces, I don't think you can do that in this case.
But that isn't to say that anything she said about the origin of this behavior... being from within the black youth culture, has any bearing on whether or not the bill has any merit, or whether or not the behavior itself if deserving of scorn, shame or disapprobation.
I'd guess that Seagraves might be a person who could be judgemental about the behavior, but multiculturalism overwhelms that instict to such a degree that she is compelled by its bankrupt logic to utilize the court system to actually protect and preserve it.
Oh, the irony of being postmodern.
Multicultural dogma trumping the offending senses… that’s probably an accurate guess as to the cognitive dissonance that occur in someone like Seagrave.
“I don't think you can do that in this case.”
Just watch them.
I bet, just through the intimidation of being accused of racial profiling, that it will possibly make those backing the legislation back off, or at least rethink their actions if it means becoming unpopular to their constitutancy, or painted as puritanical “haters” in the media. It will be interesting to see where this goes, if it’s legally challenged, or if such an ordinace spreads to other cities, etc.
What's next for the Cheney backed Brown Shirts, national ID cards?
[Dizyd]
I've read about the measure, and fully agree that I have no desire to see anybody's undies (while we're at it, let's ban thongs and low riders) but I'm unilaterally anti-dress code in public unless there's a safety issue involved (e.g. wearing full face covering for an ID photo).
In constrast to Debbie Seagrave, I see it as an issue of civil liberty versus racial profiling. The government does not need to be involved in sartorial choice. Period.
That said, I'd be interested in the motives of those proposing the law. Are they just tired of seeing underwear? Do they think that having this law in place is going to change behavior that they also disapprove of? It seems to me that it's more likely to harden the position of those wearing baggy pants -- if it's illegal, it's probably even more appealing, given that it's a fashion trend that started with prison culture. I'm all for reducing thug culture, but this effort strikes me as ham-handed and counterproductive. As we've observed time and time again, government does a lousy job of affecting culture.
“Do they think that having this law in place is going to change behavior that they also disapprove of?”
If they enforce it with the stated $25 fine, then yes. Penalties work as a deterrent with, say, traffic law; it would also work here too. Again, if enforced.
I’m with you on the civil liberties issue, but I think it’s also a public decency matter. There are reasons why it’s unacceptable to parade around half-naked in public; that’s not something I’d want to have to be exposed to, and it’s certainly not something I’d want to subject my child to in the public square. Though that’s the extreme example of what is considered indecent, it does establish a base line from where one can ask where the line is drawn.
Now here’s a vision: Would it be decent of me to walk the streets of Boston every day in just my underwear? Or hang outside your house in just my boxers while your kids play on the sidewalk?
I bet you could really mess with those guy's heads if you could somehow get every single American to dress just like them.
It'd be whack, eh?
Post a Comment