Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Witness to Camping Cross Burning Downplays Event

Anonymous said...
I was at that party. I think teenagers nowadays have a different opinion on crosses and what they mean. For a 17 year old, a burning cross is something cool (if stupid to do) and it gets attention. They arent thinking about how racist it is, or how older generations are going to think about it. I am 20. I understand both sides. But I honestly think those guys were just having some stupid, poorly thought out fun.

And as for the "hate crime video" awhile back. There were more reasons for the fight then the public knows about.

That is all.
August 3, 2010 6:01 PM

I don’t agree with those statements. Burning a cross is such an explicit act of racism that there is no other excuse for it. Young people steal garden gnomes and pull donuts in parking lots for attention. Burning a cross is an act of celebrating hate that reinforces racist thinking and attitudes.

Also, I think David White was well aware of the connotations of burning a cross judging from the KKK reference from the image to the right.

Learn More:
What sickens me the most are all the comments on Facebook that commended and praised the young men for this disgusting show of racism. If this is how our young people react to men revelling in racist culture, then I wouldn’t want to be around the Comox Valley in the next 10 years.

I think all this is all due to an explosion of a "racist redneck subculture" that started in the mid 90s. We have always been an urban country community, but I didn't really see gun racks and confederate flags on the back of trucks 'till about 15 years ago. Since then, I've been noticing that teenagers are wearing flannel work jackets and steel toed boots. Which, I find ridiculous since they're only teenagers and shouldn't be working laborious jobs

Lastly, the anonymous commenter hinted that there may have been more to the backstory of the fight that occurred last year. I’ve heard about 3 different rumours about that; I won’t speak of them because those stories were never reported or corroborated with other facts.


  1. This virulent hate cannot be allowed to go unchecked. Whether the attackers are active organized racists or not, whether the attack was racially motivated in the beginning or not, the three attackers in this video turned this into a racist hate crime the moment they uttered a racial slur. If a man calls you a name (pussy) then call him a bastard or a blagard or a motherless jackwagon or any one of a thousand suitable insults, but the moment a racial slur is uttered it is a racist HATE CRIME. Our thoughts are with JP and his family.

    Vancouver Island Anti Racist Collective

  2. Furthermore, why is it alright for a negro to call someone a n!gger, but it's not alright for another race to do so? N!gger is taking on a different meaning than it was in the 60's yet it is still offensive to enough people that you are looked down on for doing it, like homosexuality was. How many more years until it is ok to say that word? It is already gaining acceptance in the American culture and media, through music videos et al. My neighbour named his dog n!gger, and his family is fine with it. It seems to be turning from a insult to a greeting, like "homey".

  3. Thanks for the comment Julia.

    It's all about the context and malice used behind the N-word. If there was hate or the intent for harm, then it's a hate crime.

    If it's used in reference or as a term of endearment, then it's fine. Although, it's best to refrain from using that term all together to avoid possible harm.

    As for the dog named "nigger," I just hope that it wasn't a black dog. If it was, I find that rather racist, and another reason why I think the people of the Comox Valley really need a reality check when it comes to racial sensitivity.

  4. Does is it really matter what the rumours swirling around the actual cause of the attack are? Firstly, this was an attack and not a fight. When three youth surround a man with the intent of beating him that is not a fight; it is a brutal attack. The reasons for the attack or the circumstances leading up to the attack are irrelevant. The video clearly shows three young men surrounding and beating a single man. The video evidence is irrefutable regardless of the flimsy rationalizations that the supporters of these three attackers are clinging to.