City
We Shouldn't Be Surprised.
Since tackling issues 7-10 days after they happen, seems to be my thing...
The December 26th shootings downtown delivered an exceptional amount of debate and forward thinking with respect to a blatantly visible problem we have in Toronto. There are guns on the street. Certain people have no perception of the emotional damage even the slightest violent encounter can inflict on a victim. Most importantly - this issue exists, everywhere. Rosedale, Yorkville, Forest Hill, King West, Queen West, College, Yonge & Eglinton. Everywhere.
There was only one reactionary statement that left me a little confused: surprise. Certain people reacted like a parent who found out their kid had been suspended for dealing drugs at their high school. "Oh, no. Not my son. Someone must have planted the drug paraphernalia and the eight-grand in his locker."
I mean, how could an incident like this possibly catch anyone off guard? Anybody who reads the paper on a regular basis, or has any pride in being a Torontonian, should have felt shock, disappointment and anger. But not surprise.
Amazingly, until December 26th, the perception of our city and its level of safety had nothing to do with Toronto. Torontonians just knew that "we were safer than the United States". We felt comfortable making jokes about Detroit, Buffalo Chicago and New York City (which incidentally, is appreciably safer and cleaner than Toronto).
Well, guess what? We have a gun problem that rivals any major American city, in spite of a government that makes it significantly more difficult to obtain a firearm.
Where Toronto takes itself from here, says a lot about our resolve and collective intelligence. A successful precedent for dealing with excessive violence in a major metropolitan area in North America has not yet been set.
The answer doesn't lie in banning firearms or making stiffer penalties for criminals. Those are simply intransigent people attempting to mask a much larger problem. If someone does something brainless, you first need to ask that person why he or she did it. For revenge? For survival? For fun?
There is not an attractive option in the bunch. That does not mean we shouldn't seek it out.
Update: Photo has been updated. Source: Sam Javanrouh
Discussion
28 Comments
Sort By Oldest First / Newest First
Subscribe
However, I disagree about not having stiffer penalties. It's not a "cath all" solution, but it will help. I think we need RIDICULOUSLY stiff penalties. These idiots act like animals, so perhaps something Pavlovian will work. Something along the lines of:
- You're caught with a gun, you're going to jail for 25 years, no possibility parole. Zero tolerance.
- You commit a crime with a gun, you're going to jail for LIFE. No possibility of parole or release. You're done.
Extreme? You bet. Very quickly, people will realize that it's not even worth it to pick up a handgun, no matter what. There is no reason anyone needs a handgun in this country. Sorry gun enthusiasts, your hobby is just not worth the possibility of senseless crime.
I think to say "Oh, these people are products of their environment" or "They're driven to it" is bullshit. These people know the difference between right and wrong. And this is not them deciding "Should I mug this person or not" (bad enough). This is "Am I selfish enough to blast away among thousands of people just to protect my street cred". Reprehensible. They wat to act with no mercy, I say we show them none.
Thats just my $.02
please don't take this as an attack. you can defend yourselves all you want, or take the indifference path, but i would suggest just changing the picture.
Broken Engine - Hey, if you feel strongly, advocate your thing my man.
Josh - If you can explain to me how you think the monkey was offensive, that would really brighten my afternoon.
SA- No, no, please explain to the world why you can't figure out why the image is utterly distasteful. Please? It's bound to be hilarious.
Using the Monkey was appropriate for two reasons: first, whomever is responsible for the shootings on the 26th and the rash of gun-related crimes in the GTA is exercising the same amount of intelligence with a gun as the ape in the picture would (you know, if it wasn't a cartoon) and, second, I don't like looking at pictures of people sobbing. The Family Stone filled my quota for 2006.
Unfortunately, I can't help the fact that seeing the Monkey makes you have a cognitive association that's distasteful.
You've posted a racial slur you genius.
It's a shame, that people see a sketch or photo, and immediately gravitate towards its most negative interpretation. It's reality, but it's a shame none the less.
Sorry. SA.
"New York City (which incidentally, is appreciably safer and cleaner than Toronto)" - wrote the author...
Well - I wonder if he ever saw any statistics? NYC safer than one of the safest cities in Canada (that is Toronto) - even still with increased gun related crime rate?
Do NOT be ludicrous... really - the same WEEK the (in)famous shooting on Yonge St. in NYC there were 16 death of guns... during one year there are over 500 (and I'm not sure if they do count all neighbourhoods). If you wonder - it's the same with per 100.000 of habitants statistics (I mean in Toronto is MUCH lover).
Of course NYC is far away from over 2000 gun related deaths some years ago and is safer than Washington, Chicago or LA, not to mention Detroit or Atlanta.
About 'clean' NYC, especially compared to 'dirty' Toronto - I will not even waste a word.
So - please - do NOT write such idiocies, unles you think that your readers are idiots... :))
So yes, there were more murders than Toronto.
However, New York's numbers continue to improve. Case in point, NYC boasts its lowest homicide rate since 1963.
Further to that, I was referring to - and should have specificed - Manhattan. Having spent four days there over the holidays I felt much safer, and thought it much cleaner than Toronto. Past litter, there are very few homeless people on the streets. Based on population, Manhattan deals with that problem exceptionally well.
Walking on King West New Year's Eve, I was astounded by how insecure and unsafe the surroundings made me feel. Witnessing two fights, a road rage in six blocks didn't exactly buoy my confidence in the city. It just didn't.
Hopefully, that elevates my statement from idiotic to slightly irritating for you.
Having said that, it's nice to see someone defending Toronto. Good response. SA
<i>"SA- The African Canadian community has been the focus of most of the shootings in Toronto. Now do a google search on "negro" and ape"
You've posted a racial slur you genius."</i>
- is bullshit on such a galactic level, its fumes are making things difficult for the Hubble. Sidd, you're the one that made that idiotic leap of logic, ergo YOU are the racist.
Moron.
Or maybe I am not David Duke and I'm just a person that hasn't lived a sheltered life and knows that black people sometimes get called chimps or apes and don't like it much and that people posting pictures on the internet making accidental reference to such slurs probably deserve a little harassment.
No wait, maybe I am just a moron.
The poster was only racist if you <i>really</i> stretched to make it so.
So, who's more racist, the person that posted it without a thought of racism, or the person who did the gymnastic leap of logic to make it so?
Think before you start dropping ridiculous PC bombs.
showing a picture of a stupid ape with a gun in an article about primarily black gang violence and then essentially calling gun carrying gang members as stupid as apes when very ugly terms like "portch monkey", "yard ape" and a long visual history of caricatures, photographs, minstrel shows and whatnot grotesquely depicting black people as being physically and mentally more ape-like, is of course just wrong. Its by no means a stretch if you have any grasp of the history of the symbolism and the iconography related to the topic. Contrary to your opinion I did an awful lot of thinking before I dropped that PC bomb.
I'm not saying the person that posted is racist, I am saying the content they posted inadvertently was.
I'm glad they took it down.
You made the assumption. You made the racist leap that the monkey picture = a veiled reference to those derogatory terms. So physician, heal thyself.
<i>"Most importantly - this issue exists, everywhere. Rosedale, Yorkville, Forest Hill, King West, Queen West, College, Yonge & Eglinton. Everywhere."</i>
The author is listing predominantely white middle/upperclass neighbourhoods. I read this as the authors attempt to say "And we're not just talking about gang bangers in places like Scarborough, or Jane & Finch".
You wrote:
----
However, New York's numbers continue to improve. Case in point, NYC boasts its lowest homicide rate since 1963.
----
well - it is as well in Toronto (and in many other cities) - if not to count the last year - but note (oh please, oh pleas), that when you've got 1 murder and the other year 2 - it is a whooping 100% increase, instead from 100 to 101 it is only 1%.
And you were wrong to point out 78 murders refers to Toronto - it is in GTA (which is over 5 million). But that is not so much important - the one important is per 100.000 habitants. Please check stats if you do not believe - it is not a problem for an average intelligent person.
You also wrote:
-------
Further to that, I was referring to - and should have specificed - Manhattan. Having spent four days there over the holidays I felt much safer, and thought it much cleaner than Toronto. Past litter, there are very few homeless people on the streets. Based on population, Manhattan deals with that problem exceptionally well.
-----
Well - congratulations 4 days of comparison, what a scientific approach... But note also that subjective feelings have nothing in common with reality. You might feel safe as I felt safe in Washington, when it was not only the capitol city, but also the capitol of crime in the USA :))
AND of course once more you insist in writing false 'truths' - in NYC there is over 40.000 homless, far far over any number of homless in Toronto - in numbers or per 100.000 habitants...
I'd suggest you to move fast to NYC - the oasis of safe and clean streets.
But maybe you do not know - writing such false selfdegradating (for Toronto) things will NOT resolve those problems.
Oh by the way - you know that in the US you can buy guns on every corner... So good luck!
>"Most importantly - this issue exists, everywhere. >Rosedale, Yorkville, Forest Hill, King West, Queen >West, College, Yonge & Eglinton. Everywhere."
>The author is listing predominantely white middle/>upperclass neighbourhoods. I read this as the >authors attempt to say "And we're not just talking >about gang bangers in places like Scarborough, or >Jane & Finch".
So you're willing to go on record that you think the kids at Upper Canada College, or the psuedo-Danish rockstar mini scenesters on Queen W. are commonly strapped and play as primary a role in gang related gun violence as young black males from areas like Jane and Finch, Black Creek and Scarborough?
I wanted the original picture posted with the original written piece taken down because, though accidentily, was a bit distasteful. Either through the information gathered through the lens of a sometimes distored media, through simple observation and by virtue that the suspect arrested in the highly publicized Boxing Day shooting is a black male, I dont think it's hard to fathom that the topics of gang violence and the black community are fairly close together at the moment. I am not trying to villainize the black community but I do think the general public makes an association. For these reasons and the ones I've already posted, that is why I think the picture was inappropriate.
Brokenengine, you haven't really presented anything new or reasonable as far as a counter argument. When you weren't calling me names you were trying to pick apart my words in a way that makes me believe that you've learned all of your debate skills by watching episodes of Law and Order and that you will flip-flop in any way necessary to make you feel like your barstool scholar postings maintain dominance on these discussion boards.
PS: If I'm wrong then I think Blog TO will have no problems re posting the original picture.
Matt: Just for you, I'm going to steer clear of statistical based writing until I'm smart enough to sound like the Canadian Malcolm Gladwell. (I hope you're patient.)
SA
You have not made any new argumetns either. I have refuted yours, and you have not refuted mine, which is why i repeat mine. Therefore, it is your debate skills that are in question.
I fully understand what you are saying. I am saying (and I thought this would be clear by now)that the picture was not <i>obviously</i> racist or offensive, and that someone would find it so says more about <b>their</b> racist tendencies than the authors.
"So you're willing to go on record that you think the kids at Upper Canada College, or the psuedo-Danish rockstar mini scenesters on Queen W. are commonly strapped and play as primary a role in gang related gun violence as young black males from areas like Jane and Finch, Black Creek and Scarborough?"
No. But the fact that the author wrote this is testament that he was not referring to a specific demographic. Therefore, neither was the picture.
Care to try for another futile round of this?
I never argued that the author was racist. I just thought that what he posted accidentily was. I wasn't outraged, I wasn't overjoyed, I only took the opportunity to take the piss out of someone who had inadvertently made a faux pas. You're saying absurdly that my ability to spot racially insensitive material makes me racist. You're making poor arguments and even worse accusations. Your arguements only hold up within the small confines of the few words of the original post. Thankfully (no offense to the writer) other more extensive, informative, texts and facts exist outside of Blogto. So sure, the original text might not have mentioned specific demographics, but it was about gang violence in Toronto, which marries this piece to every other piece of information on the same topic.
The image was taken down because other people agreed it was wrong. Its not a great moral victory, its not much of an anything but it is sign enough that there was validity to what I said. I just feel so fortunate that you not really knowing why stands as a testament to the fact that there is some unbiased purity in the world.
I however feel unfortunate after just looking at your blog that I am wasting my time bickering with a meat head.
Sifd, I'll say it one more time: The picture, in itself, was not racially insensitive. You've tried to make this point. You've failed, every time. The only way it is racially insensitive is someone(ie YOU) stretches to make it so. That makes YOU the racially insensitive one.
I really don't know how to make it any clearer. However, I will be purchasing you a copy of "Hooked on Phonics", as I feel bad for your lack of comprehensive skills.
idiot
Web snafu makes monkey out of Wal-Mart
Friday, January 6, 2006 Posted at 6:50 PM EST
Associated Press
Human error is to blame for an offensive link at Wal-Mart's Web site that recommended a film about Martin Luther King Jr. to potential buyers of a “Planet of the Apes” DVD, the retail company said Friday.
The mistake resulted from a well-intentioned effort to promote a DVD about the black leader, said Carter Cast, president of walmart.com, the on-line shopping arm of Wal-Mart Stores Inc.
A business manager had grouped “Martin Luther King: I Have a Dream” with three other black-themed movies and assigned the package an overly broad category of DVD boxed sets, Mr. Cast said.
So when an on-line visitor looked at a listing for the boxed DVD set “Planet of the Apes: The Complete TV Series,” the black-themed movies appeared under “similar items.”
Advertisements
Mr. Cast said the display juxtaposition may have existed for the past year.
Wal-Mart removed the feature from its Web site Thursday after learning of the juxtaposition from reporters. Wal-Mart apologized and shut down indefinitely its entire on-line system for referring shoppers to other movies.
Mr. Cast said there was no racist motivation.
“There was nobody here who maliciously put together that combination,” Mr. Cast said by phone from walmart.com's headquarters in Brisbane, Calif. “I know the person was well-intended in trying to get the ‘I Have a Dream' speech out as a cross-sell.”
Walmart.com uses a different system than many other big on-line vendors to create cross-selling links. Amazon.com, for example, bases recommendations on what a shopper has bought before and what other consumers who buy a certain item also purchased.
Walmart.com manually assigns movies to specific “item display groups,” such as science fiction or African-American culture. The company's internally developed software then generates links guiding shoppers to other movies in that group.
Beside the “Apes” boxed set, the King package could have been linked to any of a random selection of other boxed set titles from a group of more than 260, including “Best Of Hitchcock, Vol. 1 (Collector's Series).”
Mr. Cast said walmart.com would only start cross-referencing movies again once it has a new system in place to avoid a repeat. That could be a technology more like what Amazon.com uses or another approach, he said.
“We are looking at a bunch of different solutions right now,” Mr. Cast said.