To condemn Adrian Peterson without considering racial context ...

[1StrongBlackMan]

is a typically privileged position.

I have avoided comment on this topic for a number of reason, not the least of which, is to avoid injecting race into what, for many whites believe, would have no racial context. Child abuse is a horrific thing, we can all agree on that ... but take a moment to examine the African-American experience in America's, not to distant, past.

I am in my 50s, and recall my elders ... particularly, those with direct ties to the South and rural North ... having me "cut a switch" or hitting me with whatever was within arms reach; my crime? ... "Not mindin'."

As horrifying as child abuse is, Corporal punishment in the African-American community, particularly when applied to African-American young males, was not considered abuse; but rather, an act of love ... a necessary survival technique ... in an environment where one cross-eyed look, one act of defiance, could very well, and often did, result in that "untrained up" child or adult, becoming "strange fruit." This is the historical context that many ignore or fail to grasp ... and they do so (largely) because their life experience lacks this reference.

We all talk about "The Talk", that African-Americans readily relate to ... we have all, either got it or given it, or depending on one's age, both. When we discuss it, our white brethren/sistren are aghast that it happens, or that it is even called for; but among the African-American community, it is what it is ... and to NOT give "The Talk" is, arguably, an act of neglect; you are knowingly sending one's child into the world ill-equipped to negotiate the world on the terms that the world is brought to them.

Likewise, with the use of "whoopings" ... To the generations that endured their sons being lynched in trees, and if lucky, of prisons, for the grievous and unpardonable act of open displays of defiance towards white folks, to NOT use whatever methods to "break that boy's attitude", would be to knowingly put that child at risk.

Is that right? Hell, no ... But neither was "Michael Brown."

.

[hollysmom]

1. I disagree, but you can just assume I am priviledged if you want

I feel I am blessed to have wise parents. These same parents were beaten regularly as children of the depression, and they chose to not continue it for their children in the 50's and 60's. They were not black, but during the depression beating children was common among all races. Their siblings continued to beat their loved children pretty badly, but my parents reasoned with us instead. Not to say I never got hit, but never on bare skin and never anyway but an open hand on a cloth covered butt for a few minutes and not enough to really cause pain and rarely.

[1StrongBlackMan]

4. Yes ...

They were not black, but during the depression beating children was common among all races.

But for very different reasons.

[randys1]

22. I had not thought of those reasons until I read what you said in the OP

I will still say there can be NO reason for this, even as there are, but zero tolerance whether it be child abuse or a football player knocking out his wife.

But the idea that a BLACK child would have to be severely conditioned, for lack of a better word, by a loving parent to protect her or him from the vicious white racists which were everywhere back then and to some degree STILL ARE, is something I had not considered.

I thought it was odd that the only ball players we hear about beating their spouse or children were BLACK.


One person pointed out to me that in the NFL this is a mathematical reality as over 80% of the players are BLACK, not sure if that is true but maybe.


Anyway, we ALL know they aint the only ones doing this shit.


BTW, I am sure if we think hard and long enough, this incident can be rightfully blamed on Obama, whaddya think?

[1StrongBlackMan]

23. But I want to be clear ...

The vast majority of these whoopings, were no where near as severe as has been reported in this case ... whelps were left, skin may have been broken; but prolonged beatings were rare (though experiencing one felt like they went on forever).

But the idea that a BLACK child would have to be severely conditioned, for lack of a better word, by a loving parent to protect her or him from the vicious white racists which were everywhere back then and to some degree STILL ARE, is something I had not considered.

As foreign as it may seem, it was the only protective measure a powerless people had to protect their man-children.

[kath]

68. (Gently) -1SBM, a whooping leaves welts, not "whelps".

A "whelp" is a puppy. Common mistake these days (alng with all the other ones discussed in a recent thread with "recking havoc" in the title.

Interesting and thought-provoking premise in your OP, and one I had not considered.

[1StrongBlackMan]

72. So true ... So true! ...

My Word of the Day Calendar is only up the "P's.

[tblue37]

86. You probably learned "whelp" for it growing up, and you probably still hear it

all the time. As I explain in a reply to the post you just replied to, I believe that "whelp" has become a dialect variation of "welt" within the linguistic community you grew up in.

That is how languages develop. Dialect variations grow, until two languages that had common roots eventually become mutually unintelligible. French and Spanish, for example, are now mutually unintelligible, whereas Italian and Spanish have not grown that far apart, so their speakers can still understand each other for the most part.

When "folio" becomes "leaf," and "pater" becomes "father," then what was once a "wrong" version of the original becomes the "correct" version within that dialect or, eventually, that language.

Of course, English is a Germanic language, not a Romance language, but 0% of our vocabulary comes from Latin, either directly or through French.

[tblue37]

85. Actually, I think "whelp" has become a dialect variation of "welt." The first time I saw it,

in an interview with Peterson about the case, I read it as a simple malapropism But I have seen it a number of times since then while reading about the case around the net, so I now think it is more than just an error, though it would still be considered "wrong" in Standard English.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

107. Being black and from the Deep South myself, I have to defend my friend 1SBM

for a minute...

It's how we talk down south. We know the correct way, but there's a language we speak that is uniquely southern.

"Whoopings" is whippings.
"Whelps" is welts.

and so on...

But let me also say this in general about blacks and the tradition of "whoopings":

I do think that there's a psychological connection between that and slavery.
I do think that sometimes black parents went overboard. My mother would beat me with extension chords and she wouldn't stop; I believe she abused me. I would go to school with black and blue "whelps" all over and broken wounds, scratches, whatever. I'm surprised that I can write about this now, but I think it's important that black people stop this behavior.

Lastly, I think there's a tragic connection between:

1. Beating/abusing children and believing that it's discipline

2. Beating/abusing women and believing that the Bible sanctions such behavior

3. Violence that exists in the black community--in the form of internalized anger and depression that is projected outward (e.g., towards one another, towards women, towards children)

4. Why anger/violence is released on the football field and is championed

Going into these issues will require much more time and energy and possible a forum where we should chat--not write--because these issues are far too complicated to dissect here in a post.

But I do think my friend 1SBM is on to something. However, I just think this is a behavior that must stop and we must stop making excuses for it.

Beating kids does not make them better adults. There's nothing to suggest that my whoopings made me better. Hell, I don't remember why I got most of them and neither do my parents. And I hear this from other adults my age (in my early 40s).

I have so many things to say that I can't really write them here, but I hope ya'll get the gist.

[randys1]

91. Understood, I am however on record as saying I think a parent never needs to hit

a child.

Leaving the violence argument aside, I dont think it works, at all.

I understand why some would have thought it did, it was what they were taught.

[1StrongBlackMan]

92. Violence argument aside ...

whoopings worked on me and I suspect it would have worked on a fellow Northern ... Emmitt Till.

[heaven05]

79. you still missed the context

Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 09:22 AM - Edit history (2)

you were privileged to have parents that chose to not 'beat' you and pursue a more humane path of discipline. Yet in the AA community what the OP poster is saying is true and maybe even relevant for younger black children, males in particular, today, yesterday and forever, given the executions of them going on in the streets of amerikkka, now, yesterday and forever, at the hands of state the sanctioned murderers. "Spare the rod, spoil the child", has some truth to it. My three when acting up, got swats on their butts and it was with enough 'love' that they knew I meant business. Me? I suffered some pretty horrendous whoopings, bleeding and all and that made me realize, as a parent myself, that there is a thin line between discipline and abuse. Learning not to cross that line makes all the difference in a child's upbringing. Just my take.

[hollysmom]

90. I understand that. I don't know if that really works or

if people think it works. I understand how things happen culturally, but how hard you hit a child has never been something I would believe helped a child succeed. I don't see breaking a child's spirit as something that would help the child.

But I was brought up in a pretty liberal integrated area I actually think racism there is worse today than it was when I was younger, so maybe it was not as used here. Never heard of a kid being hit with a switch where the trees are all oaks. Or maybe children don't see things in reality.

Edited to add - Salon has an article on this today on the value of having a well behaved child defined by race.
the racial parenting divide.

[heaven05]

98. very well written article

with good analysis of the "racial divide" in historical and modern parenting. A modern view of discipline in the black and white parenting world is appreciated for it's relevant scrutiny of modern versus historical necessity of discipline in the raising of a black child versus white child. Change is necessary in both forms of discipline used in parenting the children of different races in america, yet the articles last 5 paragraphs/reflections/analysis says it all, to me. White children outside of the abusive family have a natural inclination to believe all is possible and their parents encourage that thinking. Black children today can be told this very same thing but with reservations attached relevant to racial reality in america. Just a fact of american life. Changes do have to be made, but with an eye on the racial reality of living in a nation that does not value black life as they would a "Columbus".

Article is saved for reference.

It is a very complicated world/nation we live in and until all life in this country is respected in an equal manner and, culturally, all people are finally able to let go of their more violent and racist tendencies toward black people and black parents are able to let go of their fear for their children because of those racist, violent white tendencies to hate blacks, the necessities of racial life in america will continue to dictate the parenting norms of all parents on both sides of the "racial divide". And I add, that these types of 'abuse' will continue in black culture and not without necessity.

Finally, I noticed how people, a lot of whites I presume, jumped all over this football player. Yes his 'spanking' was over the line, no doubt. That 4 year old did not deserve that type of violence. Yet the historical precedent is there. I faced it as a child, extension cords and all. If that footballer was displacing his anger/frustration/relationship problems on this child then it was straight up abuse. If that footballer was passing on his inculcated historical understanding of parenting in a racist nation, then that is saying something about the evil of this nation's racism causing this type of 'discipline.

I lay the whole complicated issue of black parenting discipline/abuse on the doorstep of racist white america. Just my take.

[Wait Wut]

2. You don't think this sounds excessive?

Remember, this was a 4 year old. I'm not giving him a pass because he's AA. I'm also not going to compare him to Michael Brown.

Edit to add: This was all because of a sibling spat over a video game.

http://wonkette.com/560280/child-beaters-adrian-petersons-four-year-old-obviously-had-it-coming

In classic Old Fashioned Hypermasculine Parenting style, Peterson beat the boy with a small tree branch from which he had removed the leaves — which he stuffed into the boy’s mouth during the beating. The whipping left welts on the child’s legs, ankles, back, buttocks, and scrotum.

[msongs]

5. if this was done to an adult it would be a major crime, not '"abuse" nt

[Wait Wut]

6. Exactly.

If he had done this to his wife/fiance/girlfriend, all of DU would be calling for his head. But, because it was a child, everyone is defending the poor guy. I'm sure he loves his son, but he needs to take some parenting classes, work on finding other ways to discipline and learn that just because his parents may have done it, doesn't make it right. Progress is learning from the past, not repeating it.

[LiberalFighter]

10. You got it.

Enough time has gone by that what Adrian Peterson did is not acceptable. There is no excuse for everyone not catching up to the times on appropriate parenting.

The law does not provide exceptions based on race. To say that a child should be disciplined much more harshly because it is acceptable for their race is wildly wrong. What he did was not appropriate for any age. There are more effective ways that don't involve bruising or cuts. Extra chores, depriving a special treat or activity are examples.

[Dawgs]

3. Abuse of any kind is wrong in any culture.

Doesn't matter which race or who is getting abused or for what reason.

I've been sickened by how many black men have commented on this today and how each has defended it because everyone was doing it.

[gollygee]

48. Explaining the historical context isn't really the same thing as defending

I haven't seen 1SBM say it isn't wrong to hit children, just that we should understand the historical context. The context can explain even if it doesn't excuse. And I think the history of racism in this country takes its part in the blame too. Without lynchings and terrorism of African Americans, this historical context wouldn't exist.

I've heard this before, and I have to admit that I do have a hard time with it. I'm sure the reason I have a hard time with it is because I'm white and this has never been my reality or my family's reality. I feel like, "It isn't the fault of the children. They shouldn't suffer because of this history." So I do get it. But at the same time I can see how it isn't the same for my family because we never had to be beaten into compliance for fear we'd otherwise be killed. However I'm still thinking it isn't the children's fault, and they shouldn't suffer because of this history. It's just tragic from so many angles.

And I see people saying that corporal punishment doesn't actually make people behave better, but OTOH I have known some people who had really abusive levels of punishment who did become meek and mild and did what they were told. I remember commenting on how well behaved a friend's nice and nephew always were. I felt sick when I learned why they were always so well behaved. Looking back, they were probably more scared than well behaved, and I'd complimented their parents for their behavior. I relive that way too often. I had no idea at all. I'm worried that my compliment made them feel more sure about their form of "discipline." I admit that I haven't seen them since they were around 8 to 10. I have no idea how they are now. Maybe they turned into hellions. But I know adults who are quiet and never raise a fuss who were abused as children. It might not work all the time, but real abuse can sometimes make kids grow to be very compliant.

[Dawgs]

75. I didn't say he defended it. n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

93. Nope ...

I've been sickened by how many black men have commented on this today and how each has defended it because everyone was doing it.

Sure didn't. You were talking about all the other Black men in this thread.

[Dawgs]

96. There were a lot of callers, black men from the south, on sports talk radio that were defending it.

I don't spend all of my time on DU.

[1StrongBlackMan]

100. Okay. eom.

[heaven05]

82. well

this is really a dicey subject for people who are not AA to understand and for those AA males and females who did get abuse from a caregiver/parent while growing up. When I got beat, it was always "beat to an inch of my life". Favorite saying of my caregiver/mother. My sister to within one half inch. I always wondered why such violence. I did learn to respect 'authority' and avoid trouble. Never been in jail or prison. Every situation outside of the racial context is unique. I know my family was. The fear a responsible black parent had/has for their male children is and always has been justified in this society.

The historical context is true and without taint. Think about an AA mother and father who has seen a black body swaying the wind for some crime invented by racists to be able to sate their lust for murder and hate of the black person. That mother and father have justified fear for their child, male usually, ending up the same manner because of lack of deference to the white person. So, psychologically they would resort to the same violence that 'kept them in line' as perpetrated by the whites on blacks. The difference being obvious, not to harm, per se, just to instill fear of 'authority' to try to keep those children alive, thus safe.

If personal family dynamics caused the child to bear the brunt of displaced anger of either parent in an unjustified violence, then that is abuse. The other, no. Just my take.

[gollygee]

89. Thanks for your response

[enough]

7. This is a very interesting point of view, and courageous of you to raise this issue.

I have known two different Italian-American men (now in their 50's) who beat their young sons in order to toughen them up for the real world. The fathers felt that this was the proper role of a father. At a certain point, their wives and the public school system made it clear to them that they would lose their families if they were not able to find a new way to relate to their boys. It was a conscious and life-long struggle for them, put the families stayed together and things did change.

My father also was beaten by his Polish father for the same reason, to make sure he was tough enough for the real world. (By the way, he grew up to be a pacifist, and never used physical force for discipline.)

I have never before thought of the idea that, in African-American families, the use of corporal punishment was seen as a way of preparing one's children to be able to survive in the world, not to toughen them up, but to break their attitude.

What a sad sad world we humans live in.

[1StrongBlackMan]

12. To be honest ...

It took me 3 days to post that OP. I knew that people with no experience Life as Black in the U.S., would only see their frame to condemn what their frame has not prepared them to see.

I am familiar with "fighting" one's man-child to "toughen them up"; but whoopings, were to teach an entirely different lesson.

Just as an anecdotal story, one of my most memorable whoopings came while visiting older relatives in Chattanooga, Tennessee. I was 5 years old.

It was a Saturday evening and I was walking down the street with an adult male relative. We were going to get ice cream! As we approached the parlor, I kind of ran up to the door; but he stopped me, and told me we'd have to "go around back", I didn't understand because I was watching the white kids go in the front door. Just then, a white man came out the door with his family(?) ... he took one look at me and yelled "Move boy!" and with that shoved me off the stoop and into the street.

Without a word, my relative scooped me up, apologizing to the man that just shoved me, as he hustled me towards home. I cried all the way back home ... asking my relative, (loudly) why that white man pushed me and why he LET that white man push me. I was angry that I didn't get my ice cream; I was angrier that I got shoved; and, angrier still that my grown relative didn't stand up to the guy.

When we got back to the house, it was just about sun-down. He told me to go inside and play with my cousins. He began talking to the adults; but, I was in no mood to play, so I refused to go inside. He told me to go inside again, and again I refused. He, then, called out to one of my cousins and told them to help me get a switch. It was, then, that I saw the cross light up and I got shoved into the house and followed my cousins, to hide, under the kitchen. I had no idea what was happening; but I knew it was bad.

My whooping came the next morning.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

14. I tipped because it is always best to understand the context from which

issues arise. And I certainly might consider it a mitigating factor when thinking about sentencing, in terms of counseling program recommendations, for instance. When we fail to understand the influences that create behaviours, we lose the ability to truly change them, and revert solely to a 'punishment' mentality. And 'punishment' has its own dysfunctional effects on society. Simply tossing someone in jail might be thought of as society's version of whipping a child. The 'lesson' it teaches is not necessarily the one you want taught, and reinforces the idea that 'punishment' is the way to treat the next generation, continuing the cycle. America is 'hooked on' incarceration, rather than reintegration. Punishment, rather than rehabilitation.

[Tumbulu]

24. The first thing I thought about when I read about the abuse was this long history of systematic

abuse of the African American men in particular and how not being deferential to the whites was (and looks like in some places still is) a potential death sentence.

These brutalities do not spontaneously generate. Your OP and comments give context to the complexities.

No one thinks a small child should be injured. But very few of us (I am a white woman) really understand the background. Although, as I said, it was the first thing that came to my mind.

[1StrongBlackMan]

25. Thank you for attempting to understand ...

It frustrates me to no end to have people acknowledge social conditions ... then, ignore it when it doesn't fit their frame.

[Tumbulu]

29. Well, you did a beautiful job of writing these posts in a way that encourages

understanding.

Thank you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

30. Well ...

I've never been accused of that before!

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Is condemnation of Ray Rice without racial context similarly privileged? n/t

[1StrongBlackMan]

13. No. There is no historical context to an adult hitting another adult. eom.

[lumberjack_jeff]

17. "Historical context"?

There's ample historical context for both child and spousal abuse in every cultural/racial context.

I'm at a loss to understand why "racial context" might excuse child abuse and not spousal abuse, or why white belief that it's unacceptable should constitute privilege.

I can't reconcile the disparate reactions to the Peterson and Rice incidents with the idea that we as a culture protect kids but not women.

[1StrongBlackMan]

20. Well ...

I'm at a loss to understand why "racial context" might excuse child abuse and not spousal abuse, or why white belief that it's unacceptable should constitute privilege.

I can help you understand the final question ... or maybe, not ... But my answer is: Because white people, in this country, do not have a family history of having to cut down the bodies of their loved ones for the "crime" of being perceived as being uppity.

[NOLALady]

76. We are all aware that this culture

does not protect all kids.

Mothers in my neighborhood would say something like, "It's better for me to beat you than for THEM to beat you or worse". Many Mothers felt that it was important to "break that boy's spirit" in order for him to reach adulthood.

IMHO, it is a privilege to not have to worry about a child making it to adulthood.

[elehhhhna]

18. yes there is. it was called slavery.

[gaspee]

9. One of the problems

with using physical violence and beatings to break attitude is that a lot of times, it has the opposite effect - resulting in a WORSE attitude and more defiance. I know that's the result it had on me.

[LiberalFighter]

11. I would agree that would be a major pitfall of that type of discipline.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

16. Not just physical.

As I just posted in another comment, America's prison system works the same way a lot of times. Throw lots of petty criminals in, get much more hardened ones out.

[TexasProgresive]

15. One problem with taking race into consideration

This business of having the child "cut" a switch that is use to whip him/her was never an African American thing. It was common among all southerners-white, black or brown in my youth. Maybe it was done in other areas, I really don't know. But I know that it was ubiquitous in the South.

I think it has mostly fallen out of favor as a way to discipline a child, maybe among African Americans as well- I certainly hope so.

And as someone else posted, this would be considered an illegal physical assault if done to an adult- what's the diff?

[1StrongBlackMan]

19. I agree ...

it is ubiquitous to the South and rural North. And, Yes ... it was common among all (most) Southerners; but as I mentioned, for a very different reason.

And yes, it has (mostly) fallen out of favor ... BFWIW, most whoopings were/are no where near as severe as what has been reported and whooping decreased as the child got older, primarily because the child "minded" the first time, and were/became aware of the "rules" of the world.

Finally, I hesitated in posting the OP because I knew that most of the objections to it come/came from the luxury of NOT having a family history of having to cut down loved ones from trees.

[JustAnotherGen]

21. My father used to have to get his switch

I'm number 43 - i.e.

Tail end of 10 kids and 33 grandchildren.

So - my grandparents were NOT the same people they were as parents or even younger grandparents. It's well known that when I stole the tractor, rode the bull, etc. etc. at five that my grandparents shrugged their shoulders because it's nothing they had not seen or experienced before. At that point - there was zero adult supervision in their house.

But by today's standards - my mom would be sitting the jailhouse.

She lived and ruled by that dang wooden spoon. And her dad would give you a good swift kick.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

26. Has this also come down from slavery?

I saw Oprah talk about "getting a whooping" on her show, when she was a child in Kosciusko, Mississippi.

From being beaten as slaves, and then that attitude that kids need a "whooping" continues in the black community?

The four year old child said that Daddy had a "whooping room". Is this what the black culture is about?

[1StrongBlackMan]

27. Are you sincere in your questions? ...

It would seem I have explained where the "getting a whooping" came from ... it was a protective measure to prevent Black youth, particularly, Black males from appear too defiant/non-deferential towards white folks.

So did it come down from slavery? ... In a sense, yes.

Does it continue in the Black community ... Yes, but it is a slowly fading phenomena. I have raised my daughter to her 19 years, and have never raised a hand to her. But then again, she was raised in a very different world from my early "instruction" or that of her grand-parents.

No that is NOT what black culture is about ... but, arguably, it IS what our living with white culture has wrought.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

32. Yes I am sincere.

So it comes down from whites beating blacks in slavery, to blacks beating their kids to make them compliant and submissive to white people. At least that seems to be the explanation.

[1StrongBlackMan]

33. No ...

it comes down to whites KILLING non-compliant/submissive Blacks and Blacks using the only method available teach their young how to avoid that fate.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

49. Didn't I already say that with respect to beating black people?

But I didn't include killing black people?

[Kalidurga]

28. This makes it worse

It might give us an idea from where Adrian Peterson is coming from. But, if he is doing this to break his children so that they can deal with a world where you can be shot for breathing while black, then the problem is much bigger. I thought from the beginning the problem was much bigger, didn't think of it in terms of parenting a child to be fearful of the police, but in terms of that wonderful trickle down of aggression towards black men. That thing where the world treats a person like they aren't worthy of respect and are in too many cases outright abusive so they spread the pain around. I am sure you know the model I am speaking of.

But, if it's a situation of having to break children so that they don't become a victim of a cop with an attitude then we definitely need to scrap our idea of LE and start with an entirely different model.

[jwirr]

35. When my grandson and I heard about this we both mentioned how this did not sound like the

Adrian Peterson we know as fans. He is known for the good he does in the community. This OP has shown me that there is indeed more to this story than meets the eye. I am not defending him because I think he went too far but now I see there is some hope for him and his son.

[Kalidurga]

36. Yep, but the rest of us as in society as a whole

I think we are SOL unless we start taking a hard look at crime and punishment in this country.

[jwirr]

37. If he is the man we saw here in MN then he should stand up and do what he can to stop this type of

action from happening both in his own family and within the African-American community and while he is at it extent the need for change to all abusive parents regardless of race.

[Kalidurga]

38. I just read in another thread there is another allegation

the deets are vague at this point though. It would be great if Peterson got help for his rage and learned appropriate discipline does not include beating a child with a switch. I am not sure he is open to that at this point given some of the things that are coming out in regard to this latest incident, the text back to the child's mother was a bit chilling.

[jwirr]

39. If he does not change he is missing a real opportunity to do something about the bad situations.

[Kalidurga]

40. Totally agree

He could bring this cultural thing to light about boys being broken so that they don't run afoul a trigger happy cop.

[jwirr]

53. Exactly.

[jwirr]

31. Thank you. You are right about the abuse being for different reasons. I hear what you are saying

about the African-American's culture needing to protect their children - especially their sons. Which is why Adrian Peterson said it was no more than what his parents did to him. It is understandable from that viewpoint.

My father came from a German American family and my grandmother beat her three oldest children with a tire iron. The three of them confronted her when she tried the same with her youngest son. I listened to my father (the gentlest father anyone could ever want) talk about what she had done and what kind of personality she had. IMO she abused her children because she was raised in a rich family and then had to get married to a poor farmer. I have heard others say that it was often about "spare the rod and spoil the child" but in the cases that I have investigated and in the cases I learned about from other families I don't think there was much of that. In my grandmother's case had to do with plain selfishness. She had no excuse for what she did.

These are two reasons that abuse happens. I am sure there are many others. So now we are at the next question. What can we do about what today we call abuse? Hopefully Adrian will find a way to do things differently. For his sake as well as the sake of the child. Discipline can come in many forms. What do you want to see happen regarding this need to protect the African-American children without going this far. Is it still necessary? I know that is a stupid question considering Michael Brown. How does this get better?

In my grandmothers case and all those like it I favor a strong law that can both deter and punish action like hers. She was a poor mother, period. Education may have helped. But it was not there. That is where the church should have stepped in instead of quoting their favorite verses about spoiled children.

As it turned out way back then I doubt that there were any laws to protect her children. The family stepped up only when the older children took over. By the way she was as abusive to her husband as she was to her children.

After Ferguson MO we talked about how to change things for the better. Is there a way to change this in the lives of children like Adrian Peterson's son?

[DonCoquixote]

34. Strong, I cannot stand with you here

And let my lay my cards on the table..

I am Puerto Rican. Like the Afro-Americans, we have a tradition that encourages parents to whoop their kids, be they macho dads with belts, or Moms and Aunts with slaps. While I can see that many "anglos" do use such events as yet another chance to say "see, this is why OUR CULTURE is better", that does not change the fact that beating kids is wrong. If anything, I do not want the next generation of Latino kids to think taking a belt to a kid is correct; to hell with what the majority thinks or does not think.

[Nye Bevan]

41. +1.

My parents hit me, and my grandparents hit my parents, but I do not, have not, and will never hit my own kids. "Tradition" or "culture" is not an excuse or a justification for hitting children.

[1StrongBlackMan]

43. And thankfully, we have the luxury of NOT having to teach the lessons ...

my elders had to teach.

Few Black children and virtually no non-Black children, are unlikely to be killed for the crime of showing insufficient deference to the random white man/woman. Times have, indeed, changed; but it is difficult to divorce oneself from one's history.

[1StrongBlackMan]

42. Do you not see a difference between ...

a tradition that encourages parents to whoop their kids, be they macho dads with belts, or Moms and Aunts with slaps

And a culture/history/tradition that whooped(s) it's youth in an attempt to prevent them from being killed for the "crime" of insufficient deference?

[Nye Bevan]

45. The problem is, "whooping" kids does not prevent them from doing anything.

Corporal punishment does not work.

[amandabeech]

55. I'm with you.

The damage that can be done to children by this is incalculable.

I'm not black, but I know this from personal experience as well.

I was never keen on marrying and having children because I didn't want to treat my husband and children like I was treated.

I can't tolerate any justification of this kind of behavior, so I'll bow out before I get too upset.

[1StrongBlackMan]

58. Okay; but generations of my family history says differently. eom.

[DonCoquixote]

47. As someone with family members also have had problems with cops

I would ask you this. No, Puerto Ricans have not had the tradition of being beaten since the 1600's, but we get shot by cops, profiled by cops, at a rate that also alarming. I am not saying Puerto Ricans have it as bad as Afro Americans, but cops like to shoot us as well, and much of the reason my relatives acted the way they did was for the same reason, i.e. if you talk that way to white people, they will kick your (expletive deleted.)

That being said, I do not want ANYONE, bet they African, be they Latino, be they whatever, to feel they have to beat their children to PLEASE WHITE PEOPLE, many of whom will gladly beat the kids anyway!

Take a look at Obama. Yes, there are legitimate critiques of him, but how many times have you seen people rip on him and attack him because they know he is easier to attack, why, because as Don King put it, he does not have "the complexion nor connection." Even so called "LIBERALS" here, know they can take a swing at Obama, one that they would not DARE take at a Liz Warren, much less a Hillary Clinton! And yet, Obama has bent over backwards to accommodate the majority, by letting Van Jones and Shirley Brown get attacked, while keeping Rahm Emmanuel and Hillary Clinton in his cabinet. God bless him, but even Joe Biden let out the gaffe about who Obama was "so clean cut..."

And yet, has it stopped anyone from beating Obama up? NO. That is why beating our kids so that they will be able to either avoid the majority or take the invertible blows from the majority is no longer good, because now, the Majority feels that they can get away with anything, and they have Fox news tot ell them they are right, as well as those in the "left" that are all about equal rights, as long as they get theirs before those uppity brown people do. Truth is not needed anymore. We do not need to abuse our kids to please the majority, the majority no longer cares, and it no longed needs excuses, and the NRA had made damned sure to encourage that majority to shoot any of us in the name of "standing their ground."

PS: this goes out to SOME, note I say, SOME Hillary Supporters. I know many of you voted for Hillary because you sincerely thought she was going to do more liberal things; you can ignore this part. But to those that gladly cheered when Bill said "we got mugged", or who cheered Mark Penn as he said Obama was not as much of an American, we are watching. Yes, we know that whoever the GOP puts up will be terrible, but if you think flirting with the racists will not cost you, think again. You know that in order for Hillary to win, a lot of us will have to pinch our nose, because we KNOW she will go to war, and cut our benefits, and make nice with the very same people that calls people like me and Strong racial slurs behind closed doors, where they will not try not to get taped like Mitt "47 percent" Romney was. If it was not for the disaster of 2000, where compassionate conservative W. used a Trojan horse strategy to sneak Dick Cheney into power, many of us would say "fuck it" especially people who have seen how you treated Obama, that poor man who tried so hard not to offend any of you.

[ZombieHorde]

44. Very interesting.

I had no idea about this.

[Number23]

50. I'm glad you posted this. I got to cut my own fair share of switches back in the day

My last whipping happened when I was 14. I will never whip my children the way it was done to me but I understood exactly why it was done.

The whipping that AP gave his son sounds way too old school and extensive. Shoving leaves in the child's mouth? That is excessive for a 12 year old, let alone a damned 4 year old. 4 is way too young for this type of discipline, imo.

But I notice also that in typical DU style, the crimes of black folks are the ones that are primitive, horrifying and far worse than anything done by anyone else. There was a thread where someone noted another type of child abuse, smoking while pregnant, and 2/3 of the thread was people downplaying it. Alot of white folks may not spank anymore but I wonder about the smoking while pregnant numbers. Just like people should know about the dangers of spanking, they should know about the dangers of smoking while pregnant and making it seem like one is so much worse than the other is hypocritical at best.

[elehhhhna]

56. yeah, pregnant smokers are JUST LIKE toddler beating steriod loaded

part time "fathers"

[Number23]

57. See what I mean, folks?

Exhibit A decides to grace us with his/her presence.

First time in the AA forum, is it?

[kwassa]

66. Pregnant smokers might inflict more long-term damage.

Smug one.

[heaven05]

99. typical

of a statement loaded with stereotype and ignorance. geez.

[Ilsa]

51. I'm in my 50s and corporal punishment was used

on me. A southern white thing.

Then I learned better by listening to the reasoning of child psychiatrists on TV, etc.

[nomorenomore08]

52. Thank you for adding an angle to it that I personally hadn't considered.

I still abhor what Peterson did, but this OP puts it in context a little more.

[1StrongBlackMan]

61. As I mentioned ...

I was subjected to a memorable whipping for exactly the reason I stated ... and it may have saved my life on subsequent visits to the South.

I, also, have mentioned that I have not raised my hand to my daughter ... primarily because she was raised in a different time and environment ... it is unlikely that a Black kid will be killed for insufficient deference that that random white man/woman. But historical memory dies hard ... and harder for still (relatively) powerless people.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

54. My parents ran down the sidewalk with a bamboo switch.

This was in postwar suburbia. I remember my mom running down the sidewalk in heels and a nice dress shrieking at me.

I hid between the houses and laughed at her with one of the neighbor kids, because she looked like a complete fucking maniac.

What did I do wrong? I 'ran off' which was a horrible sin, according to mom. Yes, I left the house. Went outside to find other kids to play with. My folks were jailers. Didn't want me to play with anybody else. And they were supposedly educated people.

Dad lumbered down the sidewalk like a bear with a switch. I could run faster than they could.

They could not have grounded me, because I didn't go anywhere except school. And I never got an allowance even though I begged for one for years. They wouldn't buy me a new dress until I threw a fit in high school. Mom always collected handdowns like we were Goodwill or something.

She also bought herself fine straw hats and expensive purses and shoes she did not need and didn't wear.
She even got an alligator purse for $150 in the 1960s when that was an awful lot of money.

That was fifty years ago and every time I think about it, my brain feels like it's on fire. I guess that's Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome.

I'm white & middle class BTW.

[Anansi1171]

59. I feel you and love you. But with this incident in the AA

Community its time to make a stand and break with the switch, the belt and the hands. I have seen through my own sons that African-American Young Males have energy, can push boundaries and certainly require guidance and the instilling of discipline and self control. Very important in a white mans world and with what young black males will be up against.

Corporal punishment accomplishes none of that.

Even recent evidence is overwhelming that corporal punishment teaches violence and fear, even avoidance and deceit much more so than accountability or discipline. Thats the simple adult truth, no matter how difficult or counter intuitive it may be to people raised with the rod.

But what is also evident is that corporal punishment teaches corporal punishment, or violence, generally speaking. It also teaches aggressiveness, the research shows; awesome if you want to produce NFL.linebackers, but we both know we want black doctors, engineers, craftsman, teachers and artists, not pro athletes.

Lastly, I assert that corporal punishment is overrepresented in our community. That it intersected with chattel slavery and those slaves had internalized much of the whites perception of blacks, especially black boys, just as blacks were indoctrinated into anti-black racism( as was everyone within that society).

White Americans have largely abandoned corporal punishment. At least to the extent and to the degree that you and I both can probably agree occurs in the black community. Give me a generation of black children without "the switch" and I will show you a generation of better outcomes; specifically less violence and mental illness and their antecedents. I promise you that!

[1StrongBlackMan]

62. I agree with everything you've written ...

but I will submit that had my parents/relatives or their parents "broke with the switch", it is likely that I would not be here today.

[Anansi1171]

65. I respect your truth, Brother, and I am thankful that whatever the means...

...we have you here today! We need you!!

[1StrongBlackMan]

71. Would you repeat that phrase ...

once more?

It is a lesson that needs to be learned here, especially when it comes to interacting with PoC. But clearly ... when there is privilege, there is no need for respect.

{ETA: Note to the unfamiliar ... Notice this poster did not attempt to minimize/invalidate this African-American's experienced history, while still maintaining a difference of opinion.}

[Number23]

64. Lovely post. Thanks for that.

[kwassa]

67. White Americans have not abandoned corporal punishment. 75% still approve ..

according to NPR, on a story I heard tonight while driving to the airport. Only 25% of Americans disapprove completely of striking a child, ever. Much of the rest of the world has outlawed it.

19 states still allow corporal punishment in schools. Those states include the entire former Confederacy, by the way. And guess who gets hit the most?

[Anansi1171]

70. I stand corrected. And in fact I am not surprised.

Interesting that attitudes have changed elsewhere around the world but persist here.

[tularetom]

60. Son, I'm gonna whup you to protect you from those vicious white racists

IMO it's a bit unrealistic to expect a 4 year old child to see the logic in that statement.

And I'm sorry, if you believe the way to raise a child is to break his spirit I'm not certain what you can expect of that child as an adult. You may find that you beat his sense of self worth and ambition out of him in the process of instilling fear in him.

And it was just as much of a cop out 2 or 3 generations ago as it is today.

[1StrongBlackMan]

63. Okay. eom.

[tblue37]

69. He said he DOES NOT (NOT, NOT, NOT) believe that the way to raise a child

is to break his spirit.

Let me repeat that, in case you missed it. He says he DOES NOT believe that the way to raise a child is to break his spirit.

He says that in the past African-American parents did so because they wanted their kids, especially their sons, to survive, to not get lynched for being "uppity."

He says he does NOT approve of Peterson's beating of his child at all. He merely understands how this general acceptance of beating kids got into the Black child-rearing culture.

He is NOT excusing child beating, but merely explaining where it came from.

[1StrongBlackMan]

73. Thank you for reading what I have actually written. eom.

[NOLALady]

77. Thank You for the post.

From some of the comments, I can see how privilege can make a person clueless.

[tularetom]

74. LOL, that's the most condescending response to a post I've ever received

Sorry if I hit a sore spot with you, but you won't convince me of the validity of your arguments by writing to me like I'm a 10 year old kid. Approval vs. understanding, excusing vs. explaining, it's a pretty fine distinction and I don't buy it.

So every time a black parent physically abuses his child he is doing it to prevent the child from being killed by some redneck for being "uppity". And the child is somehow able to comprehend that the parent is doing this for his own good. That's a lot to ask of a 4 year old boy.

I'm sure that no parent actually believes that the way to raise a child is to break his spirit, but it's an unintended consequence of beating him for things he can't understand.

I'd like to hand around and argue with you some more but I have to put on my robe and pointy hood and go burn a cross or two. ( in case you didn't get it)

[1StrongBlackMan]

78. Speaking of hitting a sore spot and acting like a 10 year old ...

So every time a black parent physically abuses his child he is doing it to prevent the child from being killed by some redneck for being "uppity" ... I'd like to hand around and argue with you some more but I have to put on my robe and pointy hood and go burn a cross or two. ( in case you didn't get it)

No one said anything approaching that ... tblue's37's summation of what I said is far closer to what I have said than your response. And WTF is that self-victimizing quip? ... No one accused, or even implied, that you are a racist ... privileged, and apparently, only capable of seeing the world through that privileged lense, definitely; but racist, no.

If you choose not to understand what I have said, fine ... your familial experience in these U.S., provides you that luxury.

[tularetom]

80. Should Mr Peterson be charged with a crime for what he did?

All it requires is "yes" or "no".

Yes tells me I have misunderstood your post and I apologize, no indicates to me that you are attempting to rationalize Peterson's actions through some tortuous logic that ascribes and excuses barbarous acts by an entire culture.

[1StrongBlackMan]

81. I don't know ...

I have to wait for the evidence (as opposed to the media sensationalized "reporting&quot ... but that said, and limiting it to the forced binary choice you have presented, Yes ... based on the reporting, he should be charged with misdemeanor Battery, and sentenced to probation and a health amount of anger management/parenting counseling.

But this:

Peterson's actions through some tortuous logic that ascribes and excuses barbarous acts by an entire culture.

Tells me you haven't understood a single word I have written.

Good day.

[tblue37]

84. 1SBM, I seldom bother to argue with someone who seems determined *not* to understand what I am

saying. I know that they won't read or hear my words, but will insist on assuming (or pretending) that I am saying something entirely different from what I am actually saying.

But when your accurate and carefully written explanation was so bizarrely twisted, I felt I had to say something. I suppose I got a little more worked up than I should have. My comments are usually much calmer than that one was.

I had actually come to DU to post an explanation very similar to yours, but when I saw yours, I realized that I didn't need to, since you had already done so, and you had done so from experience that I can't match, since I am white.

By the way, though, there is one point in a post here that I don't understand and that I have been trying to puzzle out since reading it last night.

When you say, "the cross lit up," do you mean that white people actually came to your family's home that evening because of the ice-cream store incident and burned a cross, and that the elders had the children hide under the porch because they feared there would be violence?

[1StrongBlackMan]

88. Yes ...

When you say, "the cross lit up," do you mean that white people actually came to your family's home that evening because of the ice-cream store incident and burned a cross, and that the elders had the children hide under the porch because they feared there would be violence?

While I, to this day, do not know that it was solely BECAUSE OF the ice cream parlor; but I don't think my 5 year old mouth, helped matters, Yes ... a cross was burned in front of the house and us kids hid under the kitchen table (I learned later, BTW, we hid there, because it was one of the few rooms in the house with more than one exit path).

Now, wouldn't that under-score the importance of young'ins being "mindful"? ... When an adult told a child to do something, whether or not in a voice of urgency, the child was to obey, immediately and without question; failure to do so, was grounds for a whooping, NOT reasoning (with the child) ... Not a "time-out". History taught that obedience was a matter of life or death.

[tblue37]

83. No. That is why the black parents *in the past* thought they had to

beat their kids into passivity. They really and truly believed they needed to force them to learn deference and docility. But once abusive child rearing is in the family culture, it tends to get passed down from parent to child, and thus it tends to *stay* in the culture, unless someone breaks the cycle, not only by not abusing their own kids, but also by never allowing any relatives to do so. Usually the catalyst for change is education and/or exposure to appropriate ways to teach children to behave.

Furthermore, an adult with built up frustrations, but who has no good methods for working out or dealing with his frustrations or defusing their causes, might also use child "whipping" as a way of working out his accumulated rage and frustration. A couple of days ago I posted "The Whipping," a poem by the black poet Robert Hayden. It rather clearly explains why black families often have a family legacy of beating their kids:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025532341

The Whipping

Robert Hayden

The old woman across the way
is whipping the boy again
and shouting to the neighborhood
her goodness and his wrongs.

Wildly he crashes through elephant ears,
pleads in dusty zinnias,
while she in spite of crippling fat
pursues and corners him.

She strikes and strikes the shrilly circling
boy till the stick breaks
in her hand. His tears are rainy weather
to woundlike memories:

My head gripped in bony vise
of knees, the writhing struggle
to wrench free, the blows, the fear
worse than blows that hateful

Words could bring, the face that I
no longer knew or loved . . .
Well, it is over now, it is over,
and the boy sobs in his room,

And the woman leans muttering against
a tree, exhausted, purged—
avenged in part for lifelong hidings
she has had to bear.

It isn't just black families that have to break the cycle, of course, but since they had good reason to fear the consequences if their little boys didn't learn docility, the pattern had an extra strong foundational impetus.

I am white. My parents were moderately abusive, as were many parents of their generation, though less so than parents in their families' previous generations. Three of my five siblings (3 sisters) have (now adult) kids. Two of them never once smacked their kids. One did, but she had a very rough life, and I believe stress was a major factor in her losing control when her kids drove her up the wall as she struggled to raise them all by herself, with no money, no breaks, and no help. Even she, however, never did more than smack them. She didn't use a belt as our father did, nor did she pull hair, as Mom sometimes did. She left no bruises, either. IOW, the intensity of the abuse often decreases down the generations if education and exposure to social disapprovsl of hitting kids are there.

Certainly emotional immaturity is a big factor in child abuse. Parents who have not developed mature ways of handling frustration might hit their kids even when they *know* better. But there are other factors involved, too. General community approval is a major influence, so when everyone around you honestly believes that hitting a child is appropriate (and loving!) discipline, then that is normative. Even when a person raised in such a milieu enters a larger social environment that rejects the values he grew up with, it is difficult for most to completely shake off those deeply ingrained beliefs.

When a person thus raised is flooded with the frustrations that attend child rearing, it takes an unusual degree of emotional maturity and self-control not to revert to hitting.

I am on a mobile. I am going to post this as is and then complete my dissertation on my desktop.

I ran a daycare home for 18 years--playing a major role in raising 35 children besides my own two. I didn't have to yell or hit to get good behavior from the kids, even though my own parents yelled and hit us all the time. But I understand why my parents did that: 1) they really did not know any better, and 2) they were always stressed and frustrated, but they were not emotionally mature enough to handle those stresses, so they took them out on their 6 kids, who, admittedly, could drive them up a wall.

The fact that I understand why they abused us, and that I don't hate them for it but instead feel compassion for the stresses that they were dealing with does not mean that I excuse child abuse or would ever commit such abuses myself. No--understanding and explaining is not excusing at all. Understanding why something happens does not mean that you think that it is a good thing or that it should continue to happen.

[tularetom]

87. Frustration explains a lot of it

I'm having a problem putting this into words but as a child I believed that almost every example of corporal punishment I received was due to parental anger or frustration in which external events played a large part. They came of age during the depression and neither of them had it easy especially my dad who was dumped on the steps of a church as an infant and raised in an orphanage. They didn't spank me to teach me to do the right thing, usually they did it because they were human, they were having a bad day, and I was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And I have to confess that later on as a parent I wasn't totally immune from such a response myself. I never let my anger get hold of me to the extent that I ever struck one of my kids with a closed fist or a foreign object but there were times when my response was disproportional to the offense they committed. And I knew immediately that I had overreacted. And as my children matured, so did I. By the time they were teenagers I realized that anger has no place in child raising and I was able to deal with challenges with reason instead of emotion.

And I'm pleased to say that neither of my kids, as far as I know, ever raised a hand to their own children in anger. And their children are now parents and it appears, mature and responsible ones. So maybe there is something to this generational evolution.

But Mr. Peterson's actions toward his child cannot be explained, excused, or justified in any context of what happened to young black men in his parent's (or grandparent's) generation. He simply lost it and when off on an innocent child. And stating this isn't a manifestation of "white privilege". Peterson has more money than god and the fact that he hasn't been arrested for what he did tells me that money speaks way louder than skin color. If anything he is the privileged one here. It appears that nobody has been able to convince him that what he has done is child abuse, hopefully he will grow up and learn to do the right thing before he ruins his child.

Anyway, thank you for returning this discussion to reason and civility.

[1StrongBlackMan]

94. So you completely discount my explanation that provides historical contextual ...

citing, both, my personal experience as a Black child, and that of my family, as Black folks based on your non-Black (read: white) perspective ... and that somehow does not speak to white privilege? Please!!!

[tularetom]

95. First of all I am not minimizing your personal experience

and I can understand your perspective. I believe it was as traumatic as what you have described and I feel bad that you had to endure it. And I don't doubt that others had similar experience.

What I am questioning is whether you can extrapolate that personal experience to every black family living in that time and place. And particularly whether you can use your personal experience to justify (or even explain) Adrian Peterson's actions. Mr Peterson was not attempting to keep his son from being "uppity" (BTW I despise that fucking word), he texted that he was proud of how tough the little guy was for just taking everything without crying. And by the way Adrian Peterson is nothing if not privileged. He hasn't lost his job, he hasn't even been arrested for child abuse, he'll walk away from this with a slap on the wrist and in a year the whole thing will be forgotten. Money is far more a determinant of privilege than race.

I still maintain that most of these incidents are caused by anger and frustration.

And finally, you've never met me. You don't know whether I'm black, white, something in between or something totally different. As it happens, my paternal grandmother was the daughter of a black father and a Cherokee Indian mother. My dad was left on the steps of a church as an infant by his mother who could not care for him and raised in an orphanage. I can assure you he never once felt privileged and he did a good job of raising three kids even if he did lose his cool once in awhile when he'd had a bad day and paddle our asses. So I guess I'm 75% white.

I'm running on. I respect your opinion and I understand the basis for it. I'm not belittling it, but I just don't agree.

[heaven05]

104. right

so what.

[heaven05]

101. nothing condescending in that response

just an understanding of your ignorance of certain REALITIES in american society. Should you gain enough to try to understand the whole fabric of american society, I guarantee, you will understand. "Uppity" has been applied to our current POTUS by some very ignorant and exceedingly stupid people in this country. So since that is true, then a black child can still be seen as "uppity" and end up laying dead in the middle of somestreet, america with ten bullet holes in him/her put there by a state sanctioned murderer who saw that unarmed child as "uppity" and a threat to white supremacy and culture. So yes it is possibly that some black parents have that word in mind when disciplining a child.

Oh, and while viewing that dead body in the street, leave your hooded robe at home.

[DeadLetterOffice]

112. "Approval vs. understanding, excusing vs. explaining, it's a pretty fine distinction."

If you will not attempt to UNDERSTAND a thing -- its context, its evolution, its purpose, successes, failures -- how on earth do you think you can ever hope to CHANGE it?

And your last paragraph was completely horrid, smilie and all. Way to raise the level of the discourse.

[Sheldon Cooper]

97. I very much appreciate you providing some context for this situation.

As a white woman and lifelong resident of the northeast, this explanation simply never occurred to me. Doesn't make what Peterson did right (and I know you aren't arguing for that), but it does help to provide some insight into how things like this occur. Thank you.

[1StrongBlackMan]

103. I guess you are one of the few ...

But, I have come to understand, the most important role I can play, in this forum and in my world, is to provide racial/historic context to events. Hopefully, those without that context will accept that, for what it is.

But I guess not.

[Sheldon Cooper]

106. Yeah, you're taking a lot of crap in this thread and it seems mainly due to

a lack of reading comprehension and the inability of some people to 'do' nuance. Thanks for fighting the good fight.

[riversedge]

102. cuts into the skin is abuse. Simple as that.

[1StrongBlackMan]

105. That completely misses everything I have written, and ...

demonstrates either an inability or unwillingness to understand context.

BTW, if you re-read the original OP, and my subsequent comments, nowhere have a stated AP's actions were not abuse.

[YarnAddict]

108. Wrong is wrong, regardless of color

I was "spanked" as a child--at least once for something I hadn't done. It was horrible, it was abuse, it was wrong and the result was that I didn't trust my father--ever.

Did I behave in his presence?? You betcha! Could I have learned whatever lessons he was trying to teach me without spanking?? Absolutely! Did I "act out" when he wasn't around in ways he would never have approved of?? Yes. Would I have been better off in the long run if he had used other methods of discipline?? No doubt about it.

I am a white woman in my 50's, and am a mother. I understand spanking, from both points of view (parent and child.) The need to "control" your child, in certain situations, such as the ones you described, can feel overwhelming, and spanking is an immediate and effective response. However, it can have long-term negative effects, and is not worthwhile.

Again, wrong is wrong. What Peterson did was wrong.

[1StrongBlackMan]

109. I have never said that what AP did wasn't wrong ...

I provided racially historical context for what he did.

The need to "control" your child, in certain situations, such as the ones you described, can feel overwhelming, and spanking is an immediate and effective response. However, it can have long-term negative effects, and is not worthwhile.

True, but NOT "controlling" one's child, especially in the situations that I described ... that happen(ed) on a daily basis, can have immediate and long-term positive effects, like having the child continue living.

[YarnAddict]

111. I can understand your frustration with the responses you've been getting

It is so hard for anyone who hasn't walked a mile in your shoes to fully appreciate what you're saying.

It saddens me that now, in 2014, we haven't moved to a place where race doesn't matter. I truly wonder when that will happen. What has to happen before we get to that point?? Not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.

I do appreciate you putting this whole incident into a context that we who haven't experienced what you have, can consider it.

Meanwhile, what do you think should happen with Adrian Peterson and the Vikings?

[1StrongBlackMan]

113. I can think of two things ...

Last edited Wed Sep 17, 2014, 02:20 PM - Edit history (1)

It saddens me that now, in 2014, we haven't moved to a place where race doesn't matter. I truly wonder when that will happen. What has to happen before we get to that point?? Not a rhetorical question. I really want to know.

The complete "Browning of America" ... but then, we will find some other arbitrary trait to divide us.

The second, and I hesitate to mention this, based on the reaction found here ... is found in your first comment:

It is so hard for anyone who hasn't walked a mile in your shoes to fully appreciate what you're saying.

That is to say, race will no longer matter when white people recognize, understand and internal that their experience in these United States is NOT the experience of others ... and once accomplished, operationalize that enlightenment by stopping denying/minimizing others' truth.

Meanwhile, what do you think should happen with Adrian Peterson and the Vikings?

I would like to see AP convicted of child abuse and sentenced to 3-5 years probation with the condition that he complete a court (and child advocacy group) approved parenting education and anger management counseling.

With regard to the Vikings ... I really have a very big problem with the calls for empowering private employers to govern the non-job related conduct of its employees, even in the case of extreme, socially unacceptable conduct. It legitimizes stuff like Hobby Lobby and other corporate invasions into its employees' privacy.

ETA: A law school Constitutional Law class fact-pattern, as best I can remember it, might demonstrate my objection/concern:

"A" is employed with "B" Corporation. "B" suspects that "A" is selling propriety trade-secrets owned by "B." As a result, "B" orders its security staff to spy on "A" ... they tap his work phones, they follow him whenever he leaves the office, including to his home, to see whom he meets with, they stake out his house, just in case he leaves/has guests in the middle of the night.

After this proves fruitless, "B" orders its Security staff to get more aggressive ... so, one day, the security staff decides to break into "A"s home to conduct a search. Because of their relationship, they have local law enforcement tag along, just in case they find evidence of the theft. The police were to remain outside of the house, during the search; but would be called if evidence was found.

Unbeknownst to the security staff, "A" had called in sick and was at home when they arrived. As they were breaking in, "A" grabs a lamp to defend himself from the intruders. "A" hides behind a door, and clocks one of the security staff over the head and he is promptly subdued and handcuffed by the rest of the security team. The security staff proceeds to search the house, trashing it in the process.

After several hours, the security team finds the evidence that they were looking for ... they also uncover that "A" operated a small-scale marijuana sales operation.

The security staff opens the door and calls out to the police that they found what they were looking for and tell them about the marijuana. As the security team is walking "A" out of the home, the police officer steps in and arrests "A" for theft of corporate property. "A" is, also, cited and arrested for possession with the intent to distribute.

The following day, "A" is fired for theft and violating the companies drug policy.

You are called in to consult with "A's" Tax Attorney (whose practice is limited to Tax Law). What action(s), if any, would you recommend be pursued?

The short answer is the vast majority of what occurred is NOT a violation of the 4th Amendment, as the constitution only applies to the police officer's conduct. While there ARE constitutional issues with the drug charges; the conduct of "B" corporation is not violative of the constitution. There WOULD be civil claims and, likely, criminal claims; but, "A" could still be fired for the theft AND the violation of the company's drug policy.

I don't want my employer to have that much authority over my private conduct, even if it includes selling drugs.

[YarnAddict]

114. In that case,

it may never happen. Simply because it is impossible for anyone to understand something other than their own experience. Example: I don't think that you, as a man, can truly understand and internalize my experiences as a woman. How could you?

If we could achieve that enlightenment, who could we operationalize it? As a society, we have removed, by law, the institutionalized barriers to employment, housing, etc. That should have made a huge difference, but it really hasn't. So--I don't know.

I'm with you on the Vikings thing. Let the legal system take care of it. Whether he loses or retains his endorsements is another thing, but if he is doing is job on the field, he shouldn't be penalized for behavior off the field.

(By the way, did you ever post on the MSNBC discussion boards some ten or more years ago?)

[1StrongBlackMan]

115. No! I can't ...

But I can, and do, accept what you tell me is your truth as your truth ... and would never argue against it, moralizing against it from my male perspective. That is what I mine by "operationalize."

(By the way, did you ever post on the MSNBC discussion boards some ten or more years ago?)

Not that I recall.

[YarnAddict]

116. The problem with privilege

is that my experience, as a woman, as a white woman, as a middle-aged white woman, is really only my own experience, and is individualized by my experiences as a left-hander, as a cancer survivor, as a native cheesehead . . .

I really hope that I don't moralize--against anyone (!!!!!) but that too is pretty subjective. Often we don't even realize when we're doing it. (Which is also another symptom of privilege. Aaaaarrrrgggghhhhhh!)

The reason I asked about the MSNBC boards is that you write a lot like someone I knew from there. Always wondered what happened to him.

[1StrongBlackMan]

117. But take heart ...

you recognize privilege. That's a, rather, THE start.

[tblue]

110. And where did they learn it?

I got the switch too, when I was a little girl, from my aunt (black & raised in Depression-era Mississippi). She wasn't worried that I would get in trouble with white folks, it was just the way she knew to discipline children. She was the most loving, kindest person I have ever, ever met, so where did she learn that kind of "tough love"? From her mama, who learned it from her mama, who learned it fom her mama, who learned it from probably her "massah" or his overseer back in slavery days. That's the roots of it right there. Whippings were a cornerstone of slavery. The law & social mores today won't excuse whoopings because they used in the past. That they were used to hurt us during slavery is reason enough not to do it.

I don't think every person who whoops a child should go to jail. I'm just saying if the origins of this method of discipline are a point of discussion, then let's look at the whole picture and decide if that's a legacy we want to uphold.

Despite the whoopings, I still love my aunt more than words can say. I think she hated using the switch on me, she had such a tender heart. I never used the switch on my own kid. It never even entered my mind. I spanked him twice, only with my hand, and I still feel bad about it. Still regret it to this day.

[carolinayellowdog]

118. observations of a white member of a mixed family

My white father never laid a hand on me; my white mother slapped my face or butt on occasion; my black stepmother would not dare be violent towards my biracial half-sisters or daddy would have pitched a major fit. But my black step-siblings suffered real, memorable abuse from her. And daddy did nothing to stop it. (on edit: context is Washington, D.C., 1970)