16-Year-Old Arrested for Cross Burning

Donna, you are right - why is it when it's a white teenager they hold back the name? I think they should hold back ALL names of juvenille suspects unless they are doing a massive man hunt for a serial killer or something

I know what you mean. When that Internet threat went down in Pearl, they did not reveal the names of the three juveniles, but two black teens had stolen a car or something around the same time, and they had them on camera while they were being taken away in handcuffs. They didn't even blur out their faces. I meant to call Feedback 16 on that, but I never did.

Unfortunately, this kind of institutional bias goes unnoticed most of the time. You should call out the media on it every time you see it. It's the only way to change it.

You're right, Donna. That's what I get for procrastinating.

We're working on the media issue at the Youth Justice Project--particularly since the fear mongering media has made it so easy for policy makers to criminalize youth--and state law requires that all juvenile records be kept confidential. And yes, this is an incredibly serious crime. But if this child is locked up, he's not likely to be released less angry and more tolerant. This is an opportunity to do some real intervention in this child's life (starting I would hope with a DHS investigation and appointment of a GAL--children are products of their enviornments.)
And--while the media bias is incredible real and problematic--the Pearl internet threat kids are not white.

Finally, thanks to the JFP for coverting juvenile justice and especially the training school fiascos so well. We're bringing copies of the recent issue to our Oakley kids so you might recieve some letters from them.

Sheila, thank you for your comments, and your great work on youth issues. Definitely have the kids write us!

Re this topic: I certainly am not arguing that this kid should be treated harshly, or locked up. It's a serious thing to do, and he needs to get help and diversity training at the very least. Funny, I'm sitting here now working on a youth diversity training workshop I'm giving next week, and part of this is researching the negative way that the media cover youth in general, and youth of color in particular.

And--while the media bias is incredible real and problematic--the Pearl internet threat kids are not white.

Wow. The way the media has been, I always assume that the perpetrator is white if their faces are not shown on TV. Excuse my pessimism about that. Maybe if they were more consistent, I wouldn't think things like that.

I think any persons name should be public record if they commit a crime. Also, as far as diversity or sensitivity training is concerned... I really don't think it will make much of a difference to someone who hates and does stupid stuff like that. Perhaps a form of restitution to the family he terrorized.

As a Christian, I personally take massive offense to cross burning. I have no idea why people think this is, or EVER was, a good idea.

It is a very strange gesture, isn't it? Does anyone out there know the "reasoning" behind cross burning, i.e. what is it supposed to symbolize?

Brian...to "try" and answer your question...I don't think the "people" that initiated this activity even had a clue as to why they were doing it....I guess they were just "entitled" or @ least thought so....What even brought about this idea in the mind of a 16yr old?? Was it a joke?? Is he being raised in an "hate" environment?? Who knows...but this in my opinion, is very disturbing behavior for a 16yr in 2006....

To answer, from Wikipedia:

"In Scotland the "fiery cross", known as the Crann Tara was used as a declaration of war, which required all clan members to rally to the defence of the area. It is important to note that in Scotland it has absolutely no racist connotations. The practice is described in the novels and poetry of Sir Walter Scott. A small burning cross would be carried from town to town. The most recent known use there was in 1745, during the Jacobite Rising[1], the best part of a century before the foundation of the KKK. Although many of the members of the KKK were descended from immigrants from Scotland, there is no evidence to suggest that their ancestors brought this tradition with them to America.

The Reconstruction-era Klan did not burn crosses, but Thomas Dixon's 1902-1907 trilogy of novels portrayed a romanticized version of the Reconstruction Klan that did burn crosses (see The Clansman). Dixon may have based the idea on Scott, or on other literary or historical sources. The Klan-glorifying 1915 movie The Birth of a Nation was based on two of Dixon's novels. Birth of a Nation quotes Dixon's novel The Clansman as saying:

"In olden times when the Chieftain of our people summoned the clan on an errand of life and death, the Fiery Cross, extinguished in sacrificial blood, was sent by swift courier from village to village...The ancient symbol of an unconquered race of men."

The burning cross is a symbol used by the Klan to create terror. Cross burning is said to have been introduced by William J. Simmons, the founder of the second Klan in 1915.The 1915 lynchers of Leo Frank burned a cross two months after the lynching. They probably got the idea from Birth of a Nation, which was released in the same year. William J. Simmons, who founded the new Klan later in the same year, burned a cross at the mountaintop founding ceremony. Many of the participants in Simmons's ceremony were the same men who had helped to lynch Frank.

Many Christians consider it sacrilege to burn or otherwise destroy a cross.

The Klan, however, claims to not be destroying the cross, but "lighting" it, a symbol of their faith."

Yeah, I have always thought it bizarre that a bunch of so-called Christian soldiers were burning their own cross.

Also, isn't it bizarre that that Klansman had the same name of William J. Simmons who ran the White Citizens Council of America from right here in Jackson (and later the Fairview Inn, which he recently sold). When I researching this Bill, I was momentarily befuddled by that Bill—but as far as I can tell, there is no relation, but white supremacy, of course.

It is quite wonderful that the Fairview is now owned by a Jewish family.

How is this an "incredibly serious crime"? Is it any different than rolling trees in a yard with toilet paper or driving through someone's yard with a car? I suppose if there was the possibility of catching the house on fire but that wasn't mentioned.

Um, no offense WareTheHuman, but cross burning has a bit different history than rolling a house with toilet paper. Don't you think?

Toilet papering a house or driving through someone's yard is not an obvious hate crime. There's a huge difference.

And, as Christians, I never understood why the focus on the cross, anyway. IMHO, the focus should be on the empty tomb: not on the death, but the eternal life thereafter. But I suppose the empty tomb is a whole lot harder to put in the front of a church sanctuary...