Throwaway Children
by Sikivu Hutchinson
A gun goes off in a Los Angeles public school, and children are wounded. Mass gun violence by students is an overwhelmingly white affair in the U.S., but “any time violence erupts in a black or Latino context it’s a racial indictment, an indictment of a community, not a nation.”
Throwaway Children
by Sikivu Hutchinson
“Brilliant youth of color are automatically condemned to second class citizenship and social pathology.”
An hour before last Tuesday’s accidental shooting at Gardena High School in Los Angeles the campus radiated calm and placidity. I had just finished doing a workshop on homophobia and gender stereotypes with a peer health class. The campus is a big geographic hybrid. It abuts a train corridor to the west and a phalanx of freeways to the east. The grounds are labyrinthine and rose bushes bloom fiercely in the courtyard. Four parking lots bookend each of the school’s exits. Low slung buildings and a network of open hallways wrap around the grounds, quietly testifying to its all-American journey from plum white campus to “ghetto” school in decline.
Media stereotypes about lawless, criminal urban schools are now a stock part of the American narrative. They add color, spice, and grit to a special genre of American meritocracy; the kind eternally populated by gleaming toothed Great White Hope teachers laboring against the corrupt system to bring Shakespeare, Langston Hughes and Enlightenment to culturally deprived ghetto children. It is axiomatic that these transformational teachers can never be black or Latino and from the ‘hood. It is a certainty that these sages on the stage will turn around the most hardened heretofore unreachable gang-affiliated youth with a steady diet of literary pixie dust and tough love. After the Gardena shooting local and national news expertly trotted out these themes, minus the missionary teacher. My students complained about sensationalist portrayals. Some were outraged by a local TV news station’s dismissal of the gains the school had made in reducing suspensions. Others noticed the unfavorable comparison between Gardena and the more affluent El Camino Real High School in Woodland Hills, where a school police officer had been shot near the campus the day after the Gardena incident.
“It is axiomatic that these transformational teachers can never be black or Latino and from the ‘hood.”
El Camino Real is an academic decathlon winner located in a suburban area with “winding residential streets.” So quite naturally one would never expect such a heinous act to occur there. And yet, it did. In its rush to milk the narrative of urban youth criminality, the media conveniently omitted that the most heinous and prolific acts of violence resulting in mass student casualties have been in suburban white America. The shooters in the infamous school massacres at Littleton Colorado (Columbine High), Jonesboro, Arkansas and Santee, California were young disaffected white males with similar backgrounds to Tucson shooter Jared Loughner. Like the young man at Gardena, they were steeped in a gun culture that valorized violent masculinity. However, the Columbine, Jonesboro and Santee students were instantly transformed into symbols of troubled youth. These tragic figures were our boys, our problem, our wasted youth.
As media critics Sut Jhally and Jackson Katz wrote in response to Columbine, “when the perpetrators are boys, we talk in a gender-neutral way about kids or children, and few (with the exception of some feminist scholars) delve into the forces - be they cultural, historical, or institutional - that produce hundreds of thousands of physically abusive and violent boys every year. Instead, we call upon the same tired specialists who harp about the easy accessibility of guns, etc. All of these factors are of course relevant, but if they were the primary answers, then why are girls, who live in the same environment, not responding in the same way.”
With Columbine there was tacit mainstream understanding that these boys’ acts were symptomatic of an imperiled national heritage. Conversely, any time violence erupts in a black or Latino context it’s a racial indictment, an indictment of a community, not a nation. Thus, on the other side of the spectrum, the Gardena student was uniformly dismissed as a juvenile delinquent.
“The media conveniently omitted that the most heinous and prolific acts of violence resulting in mass student casualties have been in suburban white America.”
Suffice it to say, there will be no strenuous editorializing or earnest psychoanalysis of his motives for bringing the gun in mainstream media. He, after all, is a central casting black boy criminal from a “bad” school. Similarly, there will be no assessment of urgently needed mental health resources for young people of color who have lost friends and relatives to gun violence. By contrast, media coverage of Jared Loughner’s psychological profile has re-opened debate on the sorry state of American mental health care. After the Columbine shootings similar appeals for gun control, improved mental health services, and proactive parenting were made. Suspects from the “ghetto” only inspire a sense of deterministic inevitability.
On a KCRW Which Way L.A.? segment about the Gardena shooting, a 1991 alum of the school boldly proclaimed that “the smart kids don’t go to Gardena.” This belief drove the bootstraps mythology of generations of white flight South L.A. alums. And it has been inherited by the black and Latino middle class. Only expendable lives are wasted at public schools “ravaged” by white flight and urban “brain drain.” My talented, ferociously analytical students can break down the racist assumptions of meritocracy. But this smear resounds in a national climate dominated by the charter school tsunami and the demonization of so-called inner city schools and teachers. Here, it is tacit that time and progress left these schools behind. Brilliant youth of color are automatically condemned to second class citizenship and social pathology. The real epidemic of violence lies in this false indictment.
Sikivu Hutchinson is the author of Moral Combat: Black Atheists, Gender Politics, and the Values Wars (Infidel Books, February 2011).
- Sikivu Hutchinson's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Email this page
Printer-friendly version






















Comments
*Big Sigh*
Why are we so delusional when it comes to making an assessment about our own condition?
The truth shall set us free, so I guess the white overlords of Black liberalism is going to hate these films:
"No Guns for Negroes"
Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nckgyfGbdnU
Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2g7TbxkJuqA
Myth: Gun Control Reduces Crime
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j_YTM_eAWnQ
Willie Lynch?
I guess Black liberals and their white liberal handlers won't be happy until whatevers left of the Black family is completely destroyed, leaving all Black males completely disrespected, demoralized, impotent and feminized. All of our young men will be raised and miseducated to be:
“Princess Boy”
About the book:
My Princess BoyTM is a nonfiction picture book about acceptance. It tells the tale of a 4-year-old boy who happily expresses his authentic self by enjoying "traditional girl" things like jewelry, sparkles or anything pink. It is designed to start and continue a dialogue about unconditional friendship and teaches children -- and adults -- how to accept and support children for who they are and how they wish to look.
http://myprincessboy.com/index.asp
'My Princess Boy': The anti-bullying book and the boy who inspired it
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/blog-post/2010/10/princess_boy.html
CN: We May Not Agree on Gun Laws & Regs - But Can Agree on This
CN: Obviously we don't exactly see eye to eye on the real implications of the WHOLE 2nd Amendment & whether common-sense gun laws / regulations make sense [so I won't rehash that debate here], BUT I'm certainly w you 100% on this 'Princess-Boy' piece [though I won't equate GUNS w Man-hood].
There's a Biblical law that says 'Males should not put on anything that pertains to females [& vice-versa]...' I have a young toddler son who as he's learning to walk is naturally interested in shoes - so he often puts on my & his big brother's shoes [which of course are entirely too big] & tries walking in them. I find this 'cute' & get a 'kick' out it of when he does it. BUT- Him being a baby he thinks a shoe is a shoe is a shoe... so occassionally he tries on his mother's or big sister's shoes - I don't see this as cute & immediately take them off him & tell him [& my family] HE IS NOT to PUT ON HIS MOTHER'S &/or SISTER'S SHOES. Why - because I understand the implications of the above Scripture...
This young son's [the so-called 'Princess-Boy'] mother [I suspect there is no strong Black Man presence in their home as a Father & Husband figure] is doing this son a GREAT DIS-SERVICE [I actually see this as a form of Physcological Abuse]. Its obvious that- unless he has a sister in the same age range as this young son in their home [& it seems there isn't] - the reason he has all of these dresses, ear-rings & finger-nail polish, etc... is because HIS MOM GOT THEM FOR HIM - BECAUSE SHE THINKS ITS CUTE!!! WHY - Because there's a big push in the so-called main-stream culture [I see this as neither a so-called left vs right / liberal vs conservative issue] to normalize Uni-Sex culture [the elimination of that which distinguishes male & female - IE: Micheal Jackson Style] - & obviously his mom has bought into this [or maybe she getting paid under the table - who knows]. Because it should be obvious that a 4 yr old [nor 8 or 12 yr old for that matter] doesn't have the power to ultimately decide what he [or she] will wear - let alone buy.
Now every young son won't be into playing w toy guns [nor real ones for that matter] or playing- football, wrestling, boxing or in general playing 'rough' sports w the fellas -&- thats not necessarily a bad thing. But that does NOT mean you should then buy him Barbie-dolls & put him in a dress nor let him always hang out w girls. You should then buy him & get him interested in: books, chess / checker / back-gammon &/or scrabble games, art supplies, music lessons & age appropriate CDs & DVDs [& players], model building &/or machine erector sets, bikes, skates, &/or go-carts, a computer [under proper supervision], etc [IE: things you probably should get him whether or not he's into sports].
PS: Dave Chappel did an interview w Oprah a few yrs ago- where he posed this Question- Why does Hollywood seems to often try to put Brothers [& sometimes white guys including Arny] in dresses &/or girly-man roles - at least once??!! He went on explain how he went thru a thing w several white folks on the set about trying to get him to wear a dress [which they just sprung on him out of the blue] & how he had to insist that he wasn't going for it [curiously Oprah seemed a bit 'shy' on the subject]. He then went on to name some Black guys who have [at least once] done these type roles in movies &/or TV- & its quite a few well known guys.