Thursday, February 20, 2014

N*****s and white trash


When I first came to Terre Haute, Indiana, back in January 2010, an associate at the Lighthouse Mission, a transport from the East himself, told me that what I would find in Terre Haute was (and I quote) “ N*****s and white trash”. Now I was offended by his statement at the time, and I certainly think his statement was an overstatement and only reflected a very limited perception, but having lived in the area, and leaving and returning, I cannot help but consider there is some justification for such a perceivable bigoted statement. I am not saying that there is a blanket generalized truth expressed in his statement, but depending on one’s status and living situation the quality of persons having to be related to may be of a lower nature or character than desirable. To state it plainly, though the “N” word (to my own estimation) has nothing to do with race or such discriminatory factors, it does hold significance as to the quality of lack of character (moral and ethical) of persons, of European, Asian or African descent. This is a situation I have found to exist in the South as well as the North, or on the streets among the homeless or amid the more privileged. The one seeming constant would appear to be the prevalence of a lesser state of “class” exhibited by those content in their lack of education and knowledge, and satisfied to remain in a stifled state of learning and understanding. This condition transcends economic and other cultural standards, and is thus not limited by apparent elevated states, it is truly egalitarian, though subject to one’s own desire and effort to overcome one’s current condition.

There was a time, before experiencing life in a lesser economic situation, I would not have recognized the necessity for taking measures to ensure the protection of my person and property. But, as a matter of being plunged into living below standards once enjoyed and making associations with persons of lesser ethical/moral character, and witnessing acts, both express and covert against innocent parties, as well as amongst themselves, means of self-defense and protection have become of greater importance, as legal police protection is in no way sufficient to monitor potential violators and provide security.

As one is able to live in a situation which distances themselves from these lower levels of life and ignorance the effects of reduced experience do seem to diminish, but that is no guarantee of never suffering the disturbance of negative intrusions into one’s life. Being the more materially compensated would seem to make one a target of those less fortunate and of diminished morals, but the up side is that regular police patrols and the obvious out-of-place nature of potential criminal elements draws attention, thus affording greater security, adding to the criminals difficulty. Yet in more depressed areas, where want and ignorance pervade and prosper, and life seemingly offering no escape to experience reality beyond present deprivation, a breeding ground for muggers and thieves and virtually every kind of drug and alcoholic escape exists, all compounding the other.

I cannot contend that there is any one, or multiple, answer to these realities. I can only attest, they exist. And, regardless of the “whys” for their existence, persons forced into life situations placing them in close proximity to be affected have little or no choice but to consider and implement whatever means of self-protection may be necessary to secure their own life situations. I realize that this necessity affords a certain opportunity for abuse and misapplication of the defensive measures, but as things do exist as they are that would seem to be the cost and risk of living in a less than perfect world. A world where disrespect for others and the right of others has little (or NO) meaning to violating parties.

I am not one to think increased police protection is the answer, not unless the community as a whole is willing to sacrifice (on a progressively increasing scale) substantial liberties we have come to accept and understand as “self-evident” and “inalienable”. I do not relish the idea of living in a “police state”. Neither do I like the idea of having to live in fear of my home being invaded and/or my person nor the one’s I love being violated, or even killed. So, as a matter of the way things are (things I cannot immediately affect), I accept my right and responsibility to secure myself and those dependent upon my protection, Whatever means that may entail as I recognize the threat.

 

 

1 comment:

Melanie Boxall said...

It's widely understood among sociological circles that self-protection is times or places where there is no protection by law, gives rise to a different cultural mindset, a different system in fact. This is where the "honour" system becomes the norm. So I would say it is natural to be more aware of, or more interested in self-protection in these circumstances.

It is also normal and natural for those used to such a system, to not welcome the increase in rule of law. It's seen as oppressive, an unwelcome interference, a slight on one's independance etc. This even applies when it can be proven to be beneficial.

This is the explanation given incidentally, to the preponderance of conservative sentiment in the south-west of the US. It's only a few generations removed from "The Wild West". In frontier times self-sufficiency was a life or death matter. As societies get further away from that, they accept more "interference" from the rule of law, and welcome it.

The same dynamics apply in the middle-east, and in post-colonial Africa. You can watch the patterns, and it's all very predictable.

But that's on a grand scale. When you look at a single neighbourhood that is disadvantaged, and not "cared for" as much as others nearby, people will quite naturally, and for solid practical reasons, take on more of a self-protective stance.