I may have mentioned a little of my history here... If not, a small recap.
I am a fourth generation Japanese American. My grandfather was born and raised in America in the early 1900s.
When World War II started. My grandfather, his family and even his parents were displaced from their homes in Los Angeles due to the attack at Pearl Harbor by the Japanese, for fear that they were all loyal to the Emperor of Japan and would rise up to cause harm to the US. This displacement was to one of many interment camps in the middle of America.
My grandfather, among many other Japanese Americans men, volunteered to be part of the 442nd RCT, mostly to prove their loyalty to America and were discriminated both on the battlefield and back at home after the war because, sadly enough, they were Japanese.
It took literally almost 50 years before America apologize for this.
Something to note... The year is now 2015... Almost 2016. A presidential election is coming up and of late, the thing that I have seen happen is the following...
One, our fear about muslims is at an all time high. Since September 11th, 2001, we have steadily been focusing about the middle east, but more in particular, about the muslim faith. In the last 3 years alone, we have escalated our fear about the religion and sadly, we have even getting closer and closer to the point that we are mirroring our own media.
In this case, I am beginning to liken this to 'The Siege'... A movie that was put out in 1998... And beginning to see some disturbing trends that will come to be.
First, while it is rightly so that Islam and the Muslim faith has text that references some deplorable things... I might want to point out something, being a non-practicing Christian, that faith has always been used as an excuse for deplorable things and has been 'warped' to fit a man's view of how things were to be.
Remember, Christianity was based on Judeaism, its roots are from Jewish traditions and changed a little to say not all things were to be adhered to like it was in the Jewish faith. At the same time, men who followed the faith of Christianity has also used it to 'convert' people to their interpretation or even made various branches of the Christian faith. Catholicism, Protestant, Mormonism, and so forth. Even the cult leaders such as David Koresh and Jim Jones...
What does this have to do with my concerns?
Right now, we are doing exactly what happened to Japanese Americans... We are blanket accusing a group of people based on the actions of another group. Not everyone of the Muslim faith will follow all the edicts. Just as not all Christians are following the purest sense of Christianity because each group sees it done one way or another, but the principle is there.
I will also remind that while the history of Islamic Faith has been that of a conqueror, we also cannot ignore what has been done in the name of the Christian Faith in Europe and also in the Americas by many Europeans such as the Inquisition. This is against what was intended by the originator of Christianity, or at least, to my belief the intention.
We also ignore the other situation of the fact of what some religions do to encourage ways to continue the faith, such as some old testament text referencing surrogacy. Or ignoring the fact it is perfectly alright for men to stone other men for using the Lord's name in vain back then, yet we do not do that now.
One other thing I will note... Is this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry3NzkAOo3s
Brigitte Gabriel quotes several interesting numbers... The fact that it is a small group of people who drove the violent agenda and responsible for millions of death.
What is interesting is something else to note...
The Germans, as a whole, were not blamed for the horrors inflicted upon the Jews and many others who have died over the period of time that the Nazis. The ones who were blamed, as a whole, were those who were responsible for it.
She ignored the fact that the 'minority' of the Japanese Americans, feared by Americans as being the 'internal threat', were apologized by the United States fifty years later, an ethnic group singled out unlike German Americans or Italian Americans, which, strangely enough some German Americans did answer 'The Call' from the Fatherland...
It is easy to paint a picture of hate and fear and ignoring other things. The McCarthy Era for the fear of Communism, while the threat was credible, at the same time, many were bullied and accused or threatened because of being 'associated' with it and we also consider those times 'dark' and questionable.
The saddest thing of it all, is near the end of the video, the words she ask to the person she 'lectured'...
"Are you an American?"
I am a patriot... But I am becoming ashamed to being an American. My grand father fought in Europe, survived the persecution of being a Japanese American were people did not trust you... My grand father has even told me, time and time again... Never to forget.
And right now, I have not forgotten what he has said to me... And it is sad to see the America is so driven by fear that I am beginning to see the shades of his concerns brought about once again where we have people asking this question... And making a statement that focuses on all we fear and hate to another group.
We haven't learned from our history... And while I am not a fan of 'political correctness'... I am no fan of broad sweeping arguments that does nothing more than promote the worst kind of scenario of human kind.
Tuesday, December 15, 2015
Some perspective from a Lawyer about 'Donglegate'
http://codebetter.com/johnvpetersen/2013/03/22/donglegate-a-legal-perspective-and-some-social-commentary/
So I read this commentary... And I have to say, I sort of agree with what this man says.
On another site:
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/03/29/social-media-fallout-adria-richards-and-donglegate/
The previous link was listed, and I followed and read it.
The insights do ping on some things I do want to speak of, and again harping earlier comments with regards to the Sexual Harassment.
One is the pointing out of the First Amendment right. I will note, that in most cases, citing First Amendment rights has been the most abused excuse for people when they complain about a posting on a private site's forum getting taken down. I am no lawyer, I will admit this. However, one of the things I do want to point out is that the First Amendment right is more of the situation of the right to air grievances to the government without the fear of imprisonment or sedition from the government in return.
The reason I point this out, is the fact that many people use the argument of First Amendment as 'their right to be heard'. The most common problem with this right belief is that the level of 'right' is to everything at the highest level. I believe also the most common problem is that when people try to exercise these rights, they forget that the right to free speech is there so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. So in the case of this situation, the 'rights' of the guys there was to a degree, but at the same time, to make another person uncomfortable, there is a limit. However, two wrongs do not make a right either. What Adria Richards did was also violated their rights as well to the basics of benefit of the doubt. This would be similar to me pointing a finger at someone and calling them a child molester just on my impression or feelings of what was said.
One of the things that people have forgotten, is that the internet is currently similar to the wild west. And Wild West Justice tended to sometimes resort of 'mob rules', in this case, Lynch Mob rules. In this case, one man lost his job because of one person stating he was harassing her in a convention. There is no benefit of the doubt given, it was a direct accusation that had been investigated and ruled as an offense for the company. What more, the public nature of the accusation left the company with little to no recourse but to fire said person because of the potential legal concerns on their end as this person was literally pointed out as a problem in public.
Here is where I see the law coming into place that justifies the firing of Adria Richards. In the situation of the reporting sexual harassment, the person being reported is suppose to be 'confidential' to allow a proper and due course of investigation. When you publically report a person without the proper due course, you stigmatize the accused and already set a biased situation against the person and invite the retaliation situation. It was not simply the bowing to trolls, but also how the president pointed out why it was the decision. A person who takes offense of a developer's bad taste in jokes and reporting it in such a public fashion, regardless of the intention, still violates the dealing of Sexual Harassment or Harassment in general.
No group can deny that if I were to take a picture of Adria, stating I found some of her jokes referencing pedophilia highly offending, just on my impression as 'questionable' or even more so, not something to report as a blog or tweet. But then again, we are asked not to have 'double standards'. People want to be treated fairly and have the expectation of fairness. The problem I have with a lot of people who feel Adria should be supported are using a double standard to justify it.
The thing is, there is NOTHING out there that justify how to report harassment in a public way. Again as I point out, the internet itself is full of people who hide behind the mask of anonymity, liking themselves to our Masked Superheros, and will do the wrong things for the 'right' reasons. And if we haven't learned the fallout of Richard Jewell, 10 year stigma of being tried by the Media as the Olympic Bomber for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics... Is that trial by media is often colored by those who want things viewed their particular way without all the facts.
So I read this commentary... And I have to say, I sort of agree with what this man says.
On another site:
http://siliconangle.com/blog/2013/03/29/social-media-fallout-adria-richards-and-donglegate/
The previous link was listed, and I followed and read it.
The insights do ping on some things I do want to speak of, and again harping earlier comments with regards to the Sexual Harassment.
One is the pointing out of the First Amendment right. I will note, that in most cases, citing First Amendment rights has been the most abused excuse for people when they complain about a posting on a private site's forum getting taken down. I am no lawyer, I will admit this. However, one of the things I do want to point out is that the First Amendment right is more of the situation of the right to air grievances to the government without the fear of imprisonment or sedition from the government in return.
The reason I point this out, is the fact that many people use the argument of First Amendment as 'their right to be heard'. The most common problem with this right belief is that the level of 'right' is to everything at the highest level. I believe also the most common problem is that when people try to exercise these rights, they forget that the right to free speech is there so long as it doesn't violate the rights of others. So in the case of this situation, the 'rights' of the guys there was to a degree, but at the same time, to make another person uncomfortable, there is a limit. However, two wrongs do not make a right either. What Adria Richards did was also violated their rights as well to the basics of benefit of the doubt. This would be similar to me pointing a finger at someone and calling them a child molester just on my impression or feelings of what was said.
One of the things that people have forgotten, is that the internet is currently similar to the wild west. And Wild West Justice tended to sometimes resort of 'mob rules', in this case, Lynch Mob rules. In this case, one man lost his job because of one person stating he was harassing her in a convention. There is no benefit of the doubt given, it was a direct accusation that had been investigated and ruled as an offense for the company. What more, the public nature of the accusation left the company with little to no recourse but to fire said person because of the potential legal concerns on their end as this person was literally pointed out as a problem in public.
Here is where I see the law coming into place that justifies the firing of Adria Richards. In the situation of the reporting sexual harassment, the person being reported is suppose to be 'confidential' to allow a proper and due course of investigation. When you publically report a person without the proper due course, you stigmatize the accused and already set a biased situation against the person and invite the retaliation situation. It was not simply the bowing to trolls, but also how the president pointed out why it was the decision. A person who takes offense of a developer's bad taste in jokes and reporting it in such a public fashion, regardless of the intention, still violates the dealing of Sexual Harassment or Harassment in general.
No group can deny that if I were to take a picture of Adria, stating I found some of her jokes referencing pedophilia highly offending, just on my impression as 'questionable' or even more so, not something to report as a blog or tweet. But then again, we are asked not to have 'double standards'. People want to be treated fairly and have the expectation of fairness. The problem I have with a lot of people who feel Adria should be supported are using a double standard to justify it.
The thing is, there is NOTHING out there that justify how to report harassment in a public way. Again as I point out, the internet itself is full of people who hide behind the mask of anonymity, liking themselves to our Masked Superheros, and will do the wrong things for the 'right' reasons. And if we haven't learned the fallout of Richard Jewell, 10 year stigma of being tried by the Media as the Olympic Bomber for the 1996 Atlanta Olympics... Is that trial by media is often colored by those who want things viewed their particular way without all the facts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)