It'll be over a thousand years ...

As my cockatiel was sitting on my shoulder, I was surfing the web and came across a very interesting little article that occurred somewhere in Canada. Apparently, a Caucasian boy decided one day to verbally spar with a quiet Asian kid, and then thought that shoving and a punch to the face was an effective way of proving he was right. Unfortunately, said quiet Asian kid was also a black belt and retaliated by breaking the Caucasian kid's nose. When the police became involved due to a call from the school administrators, only the Asian was charged with assault because, well, despite the bruise he probably received from a punch to the mouth, the Caucasian ended up with (what I imagine to be) a stream of blood and a reason to get plastic surgery.

Clearly, this article tells all of us not to pick of Asian people, for they are all capable of beating our asses down. Just joking. Really.

The more serious side of me has to applaud the quiet Asian boy for not only not throwing the first punch (which many people do end up doing from being verbally assaulted) but for also fighting back in the first place. Oftentimes, it is all too easy to let things remain the status quo (particularly if one is being attacked or something) and the tendency for people to crawl into a fetal position and hope that it ends some point soon is perhaps the worse way to handle such situations. In cases such as racism, bullying, and abuse, the tendency to 'hope it would just go away' is all but a death sentence. I realize that my opinion on this goes against the code of behavior for pretty much every single school (that is, walk away and tell a teacher) but every person has the right to defend themselves against abuse.

Teachers oftentimes become pacifists; after all, a teacher cannot really 'endorse' one side over the other for they are supposed to remain impartial. This is a consequence of the 'fairness' mentality that has swept over most of America (and probably Canada as an extrapolation) and most people; in this case, however, it does not provide an equal level playing field for two sides but makes an authority figure in school unable to really do anything. Take for example, this case; should a teacher support the Asian kid for beating down the white kid in self defence, no matter how justifiable this mindset may be, it's easy for angry parents to accuse him of promoting school violence and anarchy. If a teacher supports the calls for assault charges, or even decides that the 'innocent until proven guilty' mantra should come into effect as a rational defense for the Caucasian until there is proof, then he is hung as a racist and a bigot. Either way, teachers and subsequently all 'authority figures' in the school, lose face, influence, and most importantly of all, credibility. This sort of rational logic applies not only to an educational microsphere, but also to society as a whole.

But are pacifist 'walk away' measures really the best way to solve things?

True, certain types of griefers (like internet trolls) say provocative statements more for a personal compensation rather than a real hatred, and hence are best dealt with by walking away. People like these tend to lose interest very quickly and end up moving to the next thing that they can irritate; to them, the feeling of getting a rise out of someone else and hence, holding them at a severe disadvantage by maintaining a somewhat manipulative control on the situation, is the thrill and the high. Most griefers aren't so much dangerous as they are annoying, and the wise person who does not wish to deal should, in fact, just walk away.

But some people show real and palpable hatred and express this through either verbal or physical assault. Because their motivation is no longer in seeing your reaction, but in expressing their particular views on the matter, you ignoring such things is very much unlikely to prevent them from continuing harassment. To make matters worse, emotions oftentimes tie heavily into these viewpoints, making rational discourse nearly impossible. You're not going to make them see the error of their ways by talking and offering them tea and crumpets. You can, however, instill a primal fear of getting hurt into them to make them stop.

This brings us to a gray area. If it is resolved that people have a right to defend themselves against abuse, assuming that the abuse has already occured and the victim hasn't thrown the first punch, what sort of response is reasonable? Obviously should the Asian kid have shot his assaulter, we'd all be reading about a very different situation. Similarly, if the Asian kid just mouthed back, we probably wouldn't be reading about it at all. While the former qualifies excessive force, and the latter probably a wimpy response, what ideally should he have responded with? Was breaking the attacker's nose too much, or too little?

Everyone has judgments on this, but in my personal opinion, I believe that the proper force is a single action that properly responds to the instigating action in terms of seriousness of response without causing collateral damage. For example, shooting one's attacker, while clearly a show of seriousness, causes death as collateral damage and hence, is inappropriate. Mouthing back, meanwhile, while causing little collateral damage, does not show one is seriously offended enough, particularly in a case of physical abuse. Going from my personal judgment, therefore, I believe our little Bruce Lee was fully justified in throwing a single punch as payment for a single punch (although I would be tempted to break another bone as a 'just in case' warning shot).

(Yes, I know he's Korean.)

Ultimately, it's up to people to judge for themselves when they should take action against an aggressor. One thing I cannot stress enough, however, and I say this to all the abused wives, victims, and little kids in playgrounds getting beat on by that older kid, is that no response is the same as hanging a 'Thank you, come again' sign around your neck. Just make sure that if you decide to do something about it, you act responsibly and only insofar as to warn someone that his or her actions are not going to be tolerated further.

Today is raining, but I'm probably going out. Hence, I am lazy, but not lazy enough to not defend myself if someone decides to use my head as a punching bag.

Cheers.

Link to the Article: http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/04/28/9272411-sun.html