I went with my son Kasey to McDonald's on Southgate (in Billings) tonight. We decided to go inside since the drive-thru line was several cars long. It gave me an opportunity to give my soon-to-be 5-year old a ride on my shoulders (he's getting big, and I'm getting old . there are only so many more years I can do that ).

While we were standing in the lobby, waiting for our order to come up, I felt/heard a "pat-pat-pat-pat-pat" on my son's behind along with a "gitchee-gitchee-goo" voice. I turned around, expecting to see someone at least somewhat familiar - a friend or relative or, at the very least, a person whom I would expect to pat my son's rear end.

Instead, I saw a somewhat disheveled (and obviously intoxicated) middle-aged woman of a certain ethnicity, along with 3-4 younger males of the same race in an equal state of marijuana-induced altered reality. I immediately spun around fully as to put myself between them and Kasey and told the woman in no uncertain terms not to touch my son again.

To this, she gave me a pie-eyed smile and more gobbledy-gook. I told her that I didn't know who she was, she didn't know who we were and as a stranger, she had no right to lay her hands on my child. As I said this, one of her companions said, "White Power, man," as he made a motion to roll up his sleeve and gestured to show me an invisible KKK tattoo. "I'm part white, too." His friends chuckled. (He was not white).

I didn't have the slightest problem with the color of their skin or any other aspect of their race. I could care less. What bothered me was that the woman felt as though she had the right to touch my son and then acted upon that perceived privilege. It infuriated me that she and her companions immediately played the race card, thinking that the only possible reason I would ever object to a complete stranger touching my son was because they were minorities.

The male got in my face and was asked to leave by the management of McDonald's, who later said the group had been disruptive with numerous other patrons before my arrival. Kasey was still on my shoulders when the "gentleman" and I were chest-to-chest, so there wasn't much I would have been able to do. Fortunately, enough people had gathered around the scene that he felt compelled to exit the restaurant without much further posturing.

He and his buddies uttered a few more racially-charged mutterings on their way out and commented that they were being thrown out "for no reason," that McDonald's and I were "prejudiced," and that they'd be contacting the Better Business Bureau.

The point of my story is two-fold: First - most rational people realize that it is never okay to touch another person's child without permission unless the child is in imminent danger (i.e. wandering out into the street; about to touch something hot; etc.). Second - why is it that people feel compelled to play the "race card" when it only makes them look like the ass in the scenario? I don't get it.

Thoughts? Similar experiences worth sharing?

"Nothing screams "quality time" like having only 5-to-10 percent of the attention (at best!) from your parents as an only child or a child with a single sibling would get."

Hmm...

That "value-menu" will get you every time.

The "natives" wouldn't have attempted anything against a "gang of 13" who are all nearly as ornery as I am, and are using the "buddy system"

You can't rationalize with people who are "mentally alterered" by drugs or booze. I would have been extremely angered and immediately called the manager. The manager should have called the police.

As for the race card, it's a game that started long ago and will never end. The irony of it is that they were acting in the same way that caused "white" people to start commenting on their behavior and their race.

I am just glad that your son is ok. It's tough to try and teach them about getting along and interacting with others when people like that get in your face.

That "value-menu" will get you every time.

My son isn't yet five years old. He's coming off a bout with bronchitis and had been a brave little trooper through it. I gave him his choice of any dinner he wanted. He wanted a Happy Meal. We went to McDonald's. He got a toy and was happy.

Why am I justifying my dinner to you, of all people? Probably because I'm dog-tired ...

Besides, the point of my story was not whether or not Kasey wanted McNuggets or a cheeseburger.

The "natives" wouldn't have attempted anything against a "gang of 13" who are all nearly as ornery as I am, and are using the "buddy system"

(shuddering at the thought)

You can't rationalize with people who are "mentally alterered" by drugs or booze. I would have been extremely angered and immediately called the manager. The manager should have called the police.

The manager wasn't able to call the police because I was using their phone to do it myself (I'm a dispatcher). The manager (Theresa) was very helpful, courteous and professional. The (thinking of a non-inflammatory word that may or may not rhyme with "scribe") group of them left for Pryor before officers were available.

It breaks my heart when people choose to live down to the stereotypes they claim to hate so much.

Of course "they" play the race card. They've learned that it works. As has been apparent on some of the forums even on MC.com, Its not ok to even say you have a dislike of other races. You can't really blame them for it, society has given them the ok to go that route everytime. If you are a police dispatcher, then this should be nothing new to you. Ask some of the local police officers how often they get accused of racial profiling.

[This message has been edited by BeerNut (edited 2/21/2009).]

I still say build a Walmart a bit southeast of Billings along with a McDonalds.

Why? Seperate but equal?

God bless Montana.


...

Most "white" Americans...having learned their history of being slave owning, Indian killing, land stealing [email protected] that racism is wrong and has abandoned it (at least most of them). They forget that the rest of the world has not. The questions of "who you are", "what you are", and "what color your skin is" still dominant the rest of the world whether you can appreciate it or not. So just becasue YOU are not racist, don't think that the rest of the world isn't, or that they have forgotten their history.

For the Black person, the Native Indian, the Jew, or the Hispanic...not a day goes by where they don't think of themselves as a minority in a "white man's world." They celebrate who they are every day in the clothes they wear, the way they talk, etc... "Brown Pride...Tear you Up!"..."fo' shizzo my nizzo' you dig?"

I am not saying it is okay for a bunch of drunks to touch your kid, I'm just saying these things for you to get some perspective. The world is very racist, get use to it. And yes, (not all, but most) Indians make worse drunks than do European decendents. That is a fact of history as well...their bodies have only had 350 years (plains indians) to get used to the stuff. Alcohol effects Alaskan Natives even worse.

The world is very racist, get use to it. And yes, (not all, but most) Indians make worse drunks than do European decendents. That is a fact of history as well...their bodies have only had 350 years (plains indians) to get used to the stuff.

-------------

Well, thank goodness for my Irish ancestors...I guess...

Man `o man. I thought all you enlightened folk's were the defenders of diversity and multi-culturalism and that all of us old Conservatives were the racists. You guys, talkin' the talk..Different story when it comes to walkin' the walk in a situation where you actually have to DEAL with it.

So you don't think your actions in this matter were racist? Let me tell you something about Indians. (For starters, you would be well off to learn which one's are which, as they are not all that "certain ethnicity".

In terms of your culture, you were just rude and obnoxious (We got to get past this fear-mongering idea that every Uncle Ernie is a child molester). In terms of HER culture, your actions most definitely were racist, and if you knew anything about Indians, you would have known that, or at least, may have reacted differently to the situation.

I assume she was Crow woman since you're still walking around. In the Crow culture, older women (including those with whom you do not share lineage) are looked up to as "grandmother" and are highly respected for their age and wisdom. In almost all aboriginal societies, this group of women raises the children so their mothers can feed and take care of the family. Those around them treat these women with respect and will not tolerate them being attacked for doing what they are expected to do; show affection and care for ALL of the children. She meant your child no harm. Her only mistake was crossing a cultural boundary which I expect she was less inhibited to do by her alcohol consumption. Sober, she probably wouldn't have touched your child, but cultural mores are strong and she was only doing what she was raised to do in her society.

When you turned around, you saw a group of "drunken Indians" and became confrontational. The young men reacted to your lack of respect for the woman who in their minds did nothing to deserve you in her face. Their perception of you was that you were acting in a racist manner and they called you on it. Your righteous indignation and uninformed attempt to validate your actions over this incident only confirms your racism exists in cultural ignorance which you celebrate with your statement:

"I didn't have the slightest problem with the color of their skin or any other aspect of their race. I could care less."

That's not a position statement.

That states the problem.

Sorry, but you're not the victim here. Your hissy-fit made you the ass.

On the other hand, good for you they were not Blackfeet or Cheyenne.

Blackfoot or Cheyenne woman might have opened you up from crotch to gullet.

[This message has been edited by Jim Brady (edited 2/22/2009).]

Imagine if you will the screams of outrage that would be directed at the poster who would suggest that "THEY" go back to Africa where they belong or That a Wal-Mart, K-Mart or McDonalds would be better served if it would be built in the "'Hood".

After all, we all know those dirty innians should stay on the rez where they belong. That they are all "mentally altered", by being whacked out on drugs or cheap booze. You know they, all, also get a big check from the Government each month and free cheese as well.

I agree with Jim Brady. It was quite apparent that there was a problem which had to do more with you being a snob...
" I saw a somewhat disheveled (and obviously intoxicated) middle-aged woman of a certain ethnicity, along with 3-4 younger males of the same race in an equal state of marijuana-induced altered reality. I immediately spun around fully as to put myself between them and Kasey and told the woman in no uncertain terms not to touch my son again."

You ASS U ME they were drunk or ripped. Very poor manners on your part.

Jim Brady is a honkey douche bag.

Instead of Brian having to more sensistive to the indians culture and understand that its just the great grandmothers culture , or whatever, Perhaps the indians are responsible after all.

Don't they have any obligation to understand our culture, where it's not ok to grope other people kids?

Buck!

Are you having a problem getting that synapse to fire today?

If you have been paying attention, you would know that I am an "ass", an "idiot", a "wingnut", a "moron" and it's cousin "moran" , several varieties of s**t bag, a**hole and a host other witty liberal rebuttals that I may have missed here.

But my God man! White people don't call other white people "honkies"!

It's just not proper etiquette.

(My apologies if I am missing something here)


beernut:

If you remember how the whole "Discovering America" thing came down, why should they? Europeans had no respect for theirs.

And I don't remember reading anything about her "groping" the kid. Stick to the script.

Unreal...It would probably be alright if the men touched my wife's breast to guage her suitablility to raise children because you know it is of great importance in "their" culture judging by the number of "them" at the labor and delivery portion of the hospitals in Billings. Same kind of arguement. Nobody touches my kids, especially a drunk of any race. I am sure the response would be the same if it were a 60 yr old white man slobbering while ordering his Big Mac. Geeeeez.... get a grip.

Using anyone's race as an excuse for bad behavior is wrong. That's as simple as it gets. We all live in America. We have acceptable and unacceptable behaviors. We are supposed to have manners. One of them is not getting drunk or high and then touching little children. No matter what your race or cultural background.

Jim: you make several great points. But next time I wish you would tell us how you REALLY feel.

Jim - of all the ways I thought of responding to your post, I'll stick with the simplest: You, sir, are a jackass.

I believe that you saw the opportunity to zing someone you recognize as a "pinko-commie liberal" and took it. You thought you were being the voice of reason. You thought you could show the flaws of liberalism while being a champion of the conservative cause. You thought you could show off what you believe is extensive knowledge of Native American culture. At least have the courtesy to be honest with yourself and the other posters on here.

I'd have the same reaction if YOU - or anyone else I didn't know personally - had the audacity to touch my child. If I'm an uppity racist snob for taking issue with a stranger (who also happened to be intoxicated) touching my child, so be it.

I didn't care about the group of "drunken Indians" - that's YOUR perception/projection. I cared that a woman decided that she had the right to touch my son. Again (and I'll type it very slowly so that even you can understand, Jim) ... The issue is that she felt that she had the right to touch my child. In other words, the issue was that she felt she had the right to touch my child. To put it in another way, the issue was that she felt she had the right to touch my child. (Do I need to type it again for you, Jim?) Fine.

THE ISSUE IS THAT SHE FELT SHE HAD THE RIGHT TO TOUCH MY CHILD.

I don't care about her race. I care that she touched my child. I was upset that when I told her not to touch my child - just like I would have told ANYONE - her friends automatically assumed (just as you did, Jim) that the reason I had a problem with it was because I am white and they are Native. THEY brought up the race issue, not me. Who's being racist, Jim?

No stranger touches my child. Period. End of sentence. I don't care if they were to eviscerate me, no one touches my child (and would you have defended them if they had, Jim? You're a credit to humanity).

Speaking of evisceration ... so, do ALL Native Americans of Cheyenne or Blackfoot descent carry around knives? Do they ALL gut white people who they perceive to have slighted them? Do you see where I'm going here? In case you don't ... tell me how your "enlightened by the experiences of life" statements are not themselves every bit as racist as you've deemed mine to be?

You ASS U ME they were drunk or ripped. Very poor manners on your part.

Were you there, Tootz? You believe it was poor manners on my part to take issue with someone touching my child? It's poor manners on my part to have the senses of sight and smell? There was no assumption on my part and I will not apologize for taking issue with a stranger of any race/ethnicity/age/sex/creed/religion/education/class/caste/level-of-sobriety/you-name-it touching my child. I hope you understand this.

And aren't you clever for the "ASS U ME?" Give yourself a pat on the back for that one.

I know what marajuana smells like. I also know what liquor breath smells like. Unless there is a new "Marajuana and Liquor-breath" perfume out on the market, I'll trust my senses. I was there. You were not. If you choose to think that the only reason I thought they were intoxicated was because they were native, I pity your lack of perspective. Like Jim, you are the one making assumptions and projecting.

Let me ask you this: If the group of people in question were indeed intoxicated, and were indeed Native Americans, am I forbidden from making mention of it because doing so would only reinforce the negative stereotype of "Drunken Indians?" That doesn't solve the problem and it doesn't change the facts of the situation, does it?

I suppose the next time I watch an NBA basketball game and see that there are several African American players on the court, I should immediately gouge out my eyes because I saw what some neanderthal-minded jackass might label as "a buncha ni**ers playing basketball?" Again, that wouldn't solve anything, would it? Kind of sounds silly, doesn't it?

Here are the facts of the matter (for the follow-the-bouncing-ball crowd):

1.)A middle-aged woman touched my child. (Do I care that she's middle aged? No. Do I care that she's a woman? No. Frankly, I'm surprised no one has called me an ageist or a misogynist (that's a person who doesn't like women, Jim.)
2.) She was a stranger to me. (That means I didn't know who she was, Jim.)
3.) I do not appreciate strangers touching my child. (This may be perfectly acceptable to you, Jim. It isn't to me. Ever.)
4.) I told her as much (and in doing so, afforded her the same courtesy that I would to anyone of any race) had they done the same.
5.) Her friend had an issue with me telling her not to touch my child.
6.) Her friend said, "White Power, man." (thereby introducing race to the episode).
7.) They were Native, I am white (I acknowledged their race to put the "White Power" comment in context).
8.) They smelled strongly of alcohol and marajuana. I was able to determine this because they were within touching distance. (I trust my senses more than I trust strangers and far more than I trust your ability to visualize a situation, Jim.)

You're entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 2/22/2009).]

Brian:

Your response was as expected. I feel the love. Thanks, I'll add "jackass" to the list.

The only "facts" I had to work with were yours in your original post. I didn't have to make up anything because you stated clearly that: the woman presented a huge threat by playing with your kid in a public place while you were holding him/her. She pats the kid on the ass and you freak out and go off all over her because she's A) ethnic, B) drunk C) hanging with some dope smoking punks. In your original post you react by reading her the riot act. In your response you're all nicey-nice and "afforded her the same courtesy that I would to anyone of any race".

Bulls**t.

I don't believe that pile of crap for a minute.

You took an uncomfortable situation and turned it into a public fiasco and now you're here spouting a bunch of phony righteous indignation to try to justify your actions. Well, I'm not buying it. The hypocrisy of "Oh my God, she touched my child" fairly bleeds off the page of your post. Your motivation here is blatantly obvious. Beat your chest in church and you won't have people tempting you to make a bigger fool out of yourself by trying to justify your stupidity twice.

The Indian lesson was free advice. Take it or leave it. I really don't give a ratz ass. Starting a fight and keeping that kid on your shoulders has got to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard of. Any chance this might show up on Youtube?

Brian,

All I'm going to say about this is:

even though I also would not be comfortable with a stranger touching my kid, be glad that was all that happened to your son...it could have been worse:

http://www.billingsgazett...lindau.txt

If this guy is found guilty, he should get the chair IMO.

Shu - I agree with you. As bad as the details were that have been released to the public, the full story is even more disturbing.

He's not going to be called 'Papa' for long.

Jim - You say that you're going by the facts that I listed in my initial post. Maybe you should read it again. Slowly. Take notes if you need to.

Here's an excerpt (And for the enjoyment of everyone, I will add subtitles in Jimbospeak) ***WARNING*** The following paragraphs contain sarcasm. Be forewarned. On with the excerpt:

To this, she gave me a pie-eyed smile and more gobbledy-gook. The dim-witted injun looked like a deer in headlights as she tried to plead her case to the pureblood Angel of Death who was bearing down on her. I told her that I didn't know who she was, she didn't know who we were and as a stranger, she had no right to lay her hands on my child. "GET YOUR HANDS OFF MY SON, YOU DAMNED DIRTY APE," I screamed as I spit in her apelike face, "OR I'M GONNA GO NELSON MILES ON YOUR SORRY ASS!" I then stuffed a smallpox blanket in her face. As I said this, one of her companions said, "White Power, man," as he made a motion to roll up his sleeve and gestured to show me an invisible KKK tattoo. "Please don't hurt me, sir. I'm sorry! Wh-why are you getting out a gun? No, please! DON'T SHOOT ME!" (POP! POP! POP!) replied my .45, which I effectionately call "Son of the Morningstar." "I'm part white, too." "Gkkkguhgggh ...(as he pawed at his torn throat, gasping for air that would not come to his oft-perforated lungs). His friends chuckled. His fellow prairie-n***ers cowered in fear as I went Wounded Knee on his dumb ass. (He was not white). He turned as pale as a round-eye as he bled out after I laid my vengeance upon him.

Please tell me how I antagonized her by telling her that "I didn't know who she was, she didn't know who we were and as a stranger, she had no right to lay her hands on my child?" Those were very nearly my exact words. In your considerable prescience, explain to me how I was starting a fight and "going off on her."

Here's another excerpt (featuring more Jimbospeak!):

The male got in my face and was asked to leave by the management of McDonald's, who later said the group had been disruptive with numerous other patrons before my arrival. The filthy savage groveled at my feet as I unleashed kick after bone-crunching kick with my hob-nailed boots to his face and ribs. Kasey was still on my shoulders when the "gentleman" and I were chest-to-chest, so there wasn't much I would have been able to do. I said, "See, my son - this is what all scum deserve," as I continued to stomp the mongrel into a puddle of goo and misshapen flesh. Fortunately, enough people had gathered around the scene that he felt compelled to exit the restaurant without much further posturing. My fellow Aryans cheered as I said, "Let none of the dogs escape!"

Maybe you missed the subtleties of the first sentence. Feel free to read it again. Twice, if you need to. Take your time.

The "White Power" guy approached me, not the other way around. I said nothing to antagonize him other than to tell his friend not to touch my son. He got in my face. Please, Jim, tell me how I stomped on his heritage and violated his human rights. (Now, remember - the words in bold didn't actually happen).

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 2/23/2009).]

Brian,
There is really no point in any further diatribe with Jim. And just so Jim doesn't get his shorts in a knot over the word diaTRIBE here is the definition:

1:archaic : a prolonged discourse
2: a bitter and abusive speech or writing
3: ironic or satirical criticism

Cute, Brian.

Real cute.

Your lame attempt to turn this around on me with a hate-filled diatribe was a waste of your typing skills. I'm not the closet bigot here. I'm the guy who called bulls**t on your race-baiting post; the only reason for which was to fire up all the Neanderthals to crawl out from under their rocks for a good old Indian-bashing fest.

If you would have turned around and found an old, white, Presbyterian blue-hair, you would have handed her the kid.

Don't bulls**t me.

"Hate-filled diatribe?" This coming from a man who would find it acceptable for someone to gut me for even looking at them sideways? Please.

Jim, quit digging. There has been exactly one person on this thread who has agreed with you. If the only angle you can think of is one of race, that is your problem.

You should know that to a person, everyone I have shared this thread with has wondered what's wrong with your mind. All of them. You have brought smiles to the faces of most of them. Congratulations.

(I suppose they're racists, too.)

I could type, "The issue was that she felt that she had the right to touch my child" a thousand times over a la Jack Torrence in The Shining ("All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.") and you wouldn't get the point.

Your mind is made up and you're too limited and too shallow to accept anything other than your myopic worldview. This is your handicap, not mine.

You're a small man with a small mind. Nothing I - or anyone - could type here could possibly change this, and it's a pity. You have nothing to offer the world in which most people with half a mind reside. You have to learn to live with this. I wish you luck.

Your Pal,

Brian

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 2/23/2009).]

This could have been a lot simpler if the ethnicity was left out from the beginning. Especially if the true intent of the post was a discussion of strangers touching your children.

Brian Wins!

[This message has been edited by BeerNut (edited 2/23/2009).]

I agree with Bob N.

Brian loses?

His point in bringing up the ethnicity was to highlight the fact that the offending party assumed he was descriminatory by the fact he was white and they were indian.

I don't agree at all with how he handled the situation, nor his associated opinions, but his inclusion of their race was warranted in regard to the point he was trying to make.

Perhaps we should start a thread on here of people who have had issues with those of other races. It could go on forever.

I will list a few things without mentioning what race the other person was.

1. When walking out of a store with my then young daughter a group of young men started talking in a foreign language and whistling. They stepped in front of me in an attempt to stop me from getting to my car.

2. When my pickup was totalled by a drunken man I was told to not bother to try and recoup my loss because of his race. I paid the deductible to my insurance company because he did not have insurance.

3. While shopping at the Billings Kmart I had a couple of items in my cart. An elderly woman reached in and attempted to take them as she decided she wanted them. When I asked her what she was doing she said she wanted them. I told her to put them down or I was calling the manager.

4. After being given the wrong change at a restaurant and demanding I be given the correct amount (she was shorting me $20) I walked away to the sounds of her obviously calling me names in a language I did not understand.

So....my point? I do not care what language you speak, what nationality you are. But I am a human being and deserve to be treated with respect, as does everyone. If you are being rude take it somewhere else. I will not put up with it. If you are drunken and disorderly do not expect me to respond in a kind, understanding manner. You have chosen your behavior and are responsible for what you do and the repercussions.

I am so tired of people giving other people excuses for bad behavior. There is NO excuse.

I never thought I would ever say this but I agree 110% with Bob Netherton, as well. If the discussion had been about a bunch of drunks getting out of line with Mr. Reed's child and getting their butts kicked in the parking lot, my only comment would have been:

"WOO-HOO!"

There was a most insightful comment from Morgan Freeman when he was being interviewed by Mike Wallace on "Sixty Minutes". Wallace couldn't get off the point that racial identity had to be addressed in order to solve the problem of racism. Wallace asked Freeman (and I'm paraphrasing) "How will we ever solve the problem of racism? Freeman's reply was "When we stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man and I will ask you to stop calling me a black man. I will call you Mike Wallace and you can call me Morgan Freeman."

And you can call drunks: drunks.

`nuff said

But that will never happen.

Lately, here in Missoula, there has been a rash of armed robberies. In order to IDENTIFY the perpetrator, the news is referring to him as a WHITE male. I seriously doubt anyone will make an issue out of the fact that the so-far-unidentified-robber is white. I do imagine that if the unidentified robber was of some other race....Katie bar the door!

Bob,
As someone who has worked with law enforcement, I'm pretty sure that if the suspect was black, hispanic, Native American, etc., the police and the media would be identifying him as such. It is a matter of factual description that is vital to identifying the perpetrator. In that case race becomes as neutral as height, weight and hair color.

...I think he's referring to the public outcry at the legitimate, physical description.

Wendy. I would EXPECT the local law enforcement to release a wanted criminal's description accurately, including race. The point I'm trying to make is that if said robber wasn't white, there would be people who attach extra significance to the crime. "If you're not going to behave, go back to Africa" ; "get back on the Rez" ; etc.

When Brian called the dispatch about his encounter in McDonald's, I would have expected him, and fairly so, to make an accurate description of the offenders. Brian made the point that had this bunch been a group of whites, he'd have had the same reaction.

I do have to say though, Jim's statement about Brian being lucky they were Crow................................priceless. Everyone knows how much more bloodthirsty Blackfeet and Cheyenne women are! I suppose if they'd been a group of Muslims they may have fired off a nuke.

[This message has been edited by Bob Netherton (edited 2/23/2009).]

And if they were obviously Jewish, they certainly would have killed him with a hail of diamonds. The apparently German would have tried to drown him in beer, all the while beating him to death with bratwurst.

mmmmmmmmm.....beer.. gurgle* gurgle

How many of you remember when the evil brewmaster TRIED to kill Bob and Doug by drowning them in beer? Strange Brew....damn Canadians! always drinking beer and eating back bacon!

There was a most insightful comment from Morgan Freeman when he was being interviewed by Mike Wallace on "Sixty Minutes". Wallace couldn't get off the point that racial identity had to be addressed in order to solve the problem of racism. Wallace asked Freeman (and I'm paraphrasing) "How will we ever solve the problem of racism? Freeman's reply was "When we stop talking about it. I'm going to stop calling you a white man and I will ask you to stop calling me a black man. I will call you Mike Wallace and you can call me Morgan Freeman."

Okay, call me a masochist ...

I'll try one more time to get through to you, Jim. This may be a case of you believing that two plus two equals eggplant, but I'm a stubborn kind of guy. Set your assumptions aside for a couple of minutes. They'll be okay on their own for the amount of time it'll take you to do what I'm asking you to do.

I'm going to ask you to reread the original post and answer the following questions: Which party in the scenario first brought up the race issue? Was that person me? I may be putting too much faith in your reading comprehension skills, but I've got my fingers crossed (and it's tough to type with crossed-fingers).

I did not introduce race to the situation. I did not notice their race when I walked into the restaurant. I didn't see what race the woman was until I turned around after she had patted my son's behind (And, in case you've forgotten, this was the primary issue in the first place). It was at that time that I noticed her inebriated state. My senses did not make her a "drunken Indian," her parents and her choices earlier that evening did. All I did was describe the situation as well as I could.

One of the main reasons I started this thread was to find an answer to the question of why "she and her companions immediately played the race card, thinking that the only possible reason I would ever object to a complete stranger touching my son was because they were minorities." Again, the fact that I witnessed something happen didn't make the event happen. This isn't a matter of quantum physics.

Ironically enough, Jim, I have argued the exact same point that Mr. Freeman did on 60 Minutes. If I had been the person to introduce race to the equation, you would have a point in everything you have written on this thread. But I didn't. By assuming that I was the one to introduce the issue or race, and by further assuming that the only reason I had an issue with a person touching my child was because of that person's race, you only reinforced my reason for asking why people play the race card in the first place.

You really are a piece of work.

Jesus, Brian.

Now you're reaching.

The only reason I'm going to reply is because I know you will stalk me because I didn't answer your question.

"Which party in the scenario first brought up the race issue? Was that person me?"

Yes.

You did. I have a bad habit of reading a post from the top down, so the first mention of race is in this paragraph.

"Instead, I saw a somewhat disheveled (and obviously intoxicated) middle-aged woman of a certain ethnicity, along with 3-4 younger males of the same race in an equal state of marijuana-induced altered reality. I immediately spun around fully as to put myself between them and Kasey and told the woman in no uncertain terms not to touch my son again."

Now I know where you are going with this..That I'm an idiot for not believing as you do, that the first interjection of race was when the kid said "White Power". No. You had already brought race up IN THE POST. Big letters for you.

My response was prompted almost entirely on your race-baiting statements about "obviously intoxicated" "certain ethnicity" and "3-4 younger males of the same race".

What the hell was I supposed to think?

That they were Irish?

No. I know you're a bomb-thrower and I know your only purpose here was to get the Indian-bashing going, which you did.

And the argument can never end with just corral sex because you're always throwing additional information into your responses about what you were thinking, what you didn't see, and this bulls**t "coming from a man who would find it acceptable for someone to gut me for even looking at them sideways?"

Stop it. I ignore all of this crap and try to stay with the text of the original post in my responses. I will not engage in ten different hair-splitting matches with you as you would prefer.

If you have any other questions on this matter, refer to my previous responses.

I've made my point. I'm done here. Write some other stupid s**t so I can go after that.

I wanna hear more on these murderin' Cheyenne and Blackfeets, Jim.

Sweet mother of butter, Jim!

"Which party in the scenario first brought up the race issue? Was that person me?"

Yes.

You did. I have a bad habit of reading a post from the top down, so the first mention of race is in this paragraph.

See, here's the thing. Not having your gift of prescience, I actually wrote this post after the events I wrote about unfolded. I didn't pen some self-fulfilling scenario by writing the post before it happened and I wasn't keeping a real-time journal while I was at the McDonald's.

Since the physics of the world in which we (okay, maybe not you) live in limited me to writing about the situation after the fact, I wrote things in (**GASP!**) chronological order.

You may find that most people write in this way.

Now I know where you are going with this ... That I'm an idiot for not believing as you do, that the first interjection of race was when the kid said "White Power". No. You had already brought race up IN THE POST. Big letters for you.

I don't believe you're an idiot because you don't believe as I do. You're entitled to your opinion and I actually do respect the fact that you voice it.

The reason I believe you're an idiot is because you're blaming me for introducing race into the situation based on me writing about it AFTER the event happened. The kid said "White Power" before I came home and started typing. By doing so, the kid introduced race into the situation. EVERYTHING I wrote happened after this.

Had the kid not said anything at all, I wouldn't have had anything to type. You and I wouldn't be having this discussion. We live in a linear world, Jim.

My response was prompted almost entirely on your race-baiting statements about "obviously intoxicated" "certain ethnicity" and "3-4 younger males of the same race".

What the hell was I supposed to think?

That they were Irish?

You were supposed to think:

1.) They were obviously intoxicated (in and of itself, this states nothing about they're race, unless you yourself bring that preconception to the table).
2.) They were of a certain ethnicity (meaning they were not white - keep in mind that the kid made his "White Power" statement BEFORE I wrote anything, thereby introducing the "race card" in the first place. (Please read this sentence as many times as is necessary for you to understand it).
3.) The kid's companions shared the same "certain ethnicity."

If I hadn't made any mention of race in my post (just so that you don't forget, I wrote the post AFTER the events happened), the meaning behind the kid's "White Power" gesture would lack context. You would have already assumed that he and his friends were white and my question about why the kid played the race card wouldn't have had any meaning.

That's what the hell you were supposed to think.

No. I know you're a bomb-thrower and I know your only purpose here was to get the Indian-bashing going, which you did ...

... Stop it. I ignore all of this crap and try to stay with the text of the original post in my responses. I will not engage in ten different hair-splitting matches with you as you would prefer.

Be honest with yourself, Jim. You clearly have not stayed within the text of the original post. You apparently weren't even aware that it was written after the event written about had occurred.

- You make the assumption that I am a "bomb-thrower." Was this stated as my intention in the original post? No - the label you gave me is based on the assumption that you brought with you when you read it.

To my sensibilities, a bomb-thrower is a person who lobs a bomb (submits a post) and then runs away, uninterested in any feedback. Clearly, I was looking for feedback based on the very last sentence of my initial post.

- You make the assumption that my "only purpose was to get the Indian-bashing going." Was this stated in any sort of manifesto in the original post? No - again, this is something you brought with you.

You were the one to bring up the "bulls**t" about a Blackfoot or Cheyenne woman "opening me up from crotch to gullet." Again, this is not something that was in my original post, which you claim to have been sticking to. Yes, it is bulls**t, but it's your bulls**t. I'm not going to apologize for recognizing it for what it is.

I know what was in the original post because I wrote the original post in the first place (but not before the events I wrote about happened. You brought your assumptions with you when you read the post and conveniently forgot how time works.

As I stated in my original post (which you claim to know better than I do), the point of my story was two-fold:

1.) To state that it is never okay to touch someone else's child without permission.

2.) To ask why people feel the need to bring up the issue in the first place.

I made mention of the topic of race in my post because it had already been raised by the "White Power" kid. I was curious as to why he would have been compelled to do so based on me telling his companion not to touch my child.

It was that simple. You have decided to make it difficult because of whatever agenda or worldview you - and Tootz, too, it seems - have that's so incompatible with mine, or I daresay, the average person's, Jim.

In your response(s), you have shown that my question was valid. Based on your responses alone, without any preconception on my part, you made it clear that you believe that the only reason that I could have possibly had for not wanting a stranger to touch my son was because that person was native.

That is not, nor has it ever been, the case. I have said as much, and you have said "bulls**t," because you can't imagine things being any other way. As I've said before, this is your shortcoming. Don't pin it on me. Two plus two is never going to equal eggplant in my eyes.

[This message has been edited by Brian A. Reed (edited 2/26/2009).]

I think that the race card is used too much. My daughter is half African American and I hope that race is never an issue for her but I know that it probably will be. I don't see the kids being a problem but the old fashioned parents. I also see myself being looked down upon because I was with a black man.
My daughter has already been called a "colored" child and let me tell you what it took all that I had not to punch the woman but I said to myself that I have to learn to deal with issues as they arise and pick the battles that I fight.
I think that if any strange individual tried to touch my daughter that I would have the same reaction that this individual did, and it would not matter if they were white, black, red or yellow.

Holy cow - just when I thought the "Tax Time" thread was getting to be as much fun as I could possibly handle, this thread gets resurrected!

CPR - Crazy Pundit Resuscitation

Brian, you also don't know me and I don't know you. Would you be eqally upset if I as a stranger Just said "hi" to your son and smiled at him? and made (not mean but fun) little faces at him? Because I hve just said hi "little cutie" to little kids and their parents looked at me like they thought I was going to kidnap them or something.

In honor of the natives, Brian's name has unceremoniously been changed from Reed to Grass-blowing-in-the-Wind.


Matt 11:7

Brian, you also don't know me and I don't know you. Would you be eqally upset if I as a stranger Just said "hi" to your son and smiled at him? and made (not mean but fun) little faces at him? Because I hve just said hi "little cutie" to little kids and their parents looked at me like they thought I was going to kidnap them or something.

If you just said "hi" and made eye contact with me first? No, I wouldn't be equally upset.

If you came from behind me where I couldn't see you and patted my son's behind without any consent on my part? Yes, I would be equally upset.

You're comparing apples and oranges, Hat.

In honor of the natives, Brian's name has unceremoniously been changed from Reed to Grass-blowing-in-the-Wind.

So I'm flexible and adaptable to change? I bend but don't break? Fine, go ahead and throw me in the briar patch, Richard.

I was just wondering. I can understand why you would have been upset about that. That is something I will not do. If I had children I would have been quite peeved. I don't know you but I think I know your mom. Great lady!!

In honor of the natives, Brian's name has unceremoniously been changed from Reed to Grass-blowing-in-the-Wind.

Grass-blowing-in-the-Wind beats "Antihistamine," I must say.

Shall we discuss alternate meanings of first names, Richard? Methinks you may come up on the short end of that particular stick.

What is notable to me is that Jim takes Brian to task because Brian, apparently, wasn't (cough) "sensitive" enough to know that in *her* culture, touching his kid was ok.

But Jim doesn't seem to require ol ms. butt-toucher to be sensitive enough to *Brian's* culture to know that the average US citizen is likely to completely not be inclined to excuse it if, uninvited, you touch his or her little kid anywhere, much less on a secondary sexual characteristic.

Jim's post is classic political correctness. Sounds really good, has all the buzzwords: culture, etc., names tribes, berates us for not knowing their "wayz"; actually is really, really stupid and biased one way all to heck and gone.

Is the concern that every bloody person out there is chester the molester overblown? Sure. Does that mean it should ever be ok for some random person to prod your kid without obtaining your permission?

No.

Are there cultural differences? Sure. Does that mean that one culture should be given a pass to impose theirs on the other?

No.

So where is the imposition here? Who acted? Who reacted? From Brian's post, butt-touchery was the action, and therefore contains the presumption; his acts were reaction, the pins knocked down by the bowling ball.

Clearly, the fault, and there is fault here, is in the butt-touchery. Doesn't matter if it's ok in her culture.

The fact that they were drunk trumps a lot of the cultural factors, in my humble opinion. Is there a culture out there where it is acceptable to throw up on someone's couch in a party situation?

Not quite sure what you're saying there... but I will say this:

If someone chooses to drink, and subsequently becomes intoxicated, this is no excuse. They are still 100% responsible for their actions and any consequences of those actions.

Sounds like "debuttchery" to me.

Did it ever occur to any of you that a simple word added into this whole scenario could have made all the difference?

Brian, Please would have made it a lot more palatable to the middle aged drunk.

Do any of you stop to think that when we were children it wasn't uncommon for strangers to pinch the cheeks or pat the bottoms of young children they didn't know. Some people just never quite made it out of that habit.

I had to deal with it to a much worse degree as I had premature identical twins. Try going through Rimrock Mall or West Park Plaza with babies who everyone wanted to stop and touch. Politeness kept most peoples hands off my children, my ex-husbands belligerence only made the matter worse.

You state you told her in no uncertain terms not to touch your child again. You don't think that was antagonistic?

Jackie - the words I said were:

"Do not touch my child. You don't know us and we don't know you."

It wasn't antagonistic, but it was direct. Since the line had already been crossed, I didn't feel any need to beat around the bush.