I read this story (be sure to read the comments for some insights that attempt to justify this racist “ban”) about Cordish County in Kansas and their “ban” on “baggy pants” in an area referred to as Kansas City Live a few weeks ago; I wasn’t quite sure what my thoughts were. And, then it came to me…
It’s actually a very common and typical way for non-Black people to exclude non-white people. It’s called ‘racial profiling‘.
It always sets off my radar when, in the name of making one group of people feel “comfortable” it means the exclusion of another group of people based on certain characteristics. And, it’s usually non-white people who are excluded in some form or fashion.
My barometer for situations like this is to do a side-by-side comparison to Jewish people.
So, in this instance, would this “ban” still be allowed, if Kansas City decided to “ban” yarmulkes/kippas, sidelocks, gartels/haguras or prayer shawls/Tallits?
My answer is, “Hell, no.” This kind of a “ban” would be on news stations around the country but, alas this is the type of acute mobilization that can happen when you control the medium and the message.
If you’ve ever heard a non-white person say that racism is institutionalized, this is a prime example. Among many other systems, racism is ingrained in the legal system.
Wednesday, April 15th 2009 at 1:46 pm |
Like banning Muslim head scarves.
Of course, yarmulkes and Tallits have been banned from time to time—never to a good end—like in Nazi Germany.
I personally was not allowed to wear pants through my entire grammar- and high-school career, forced to wear a dress or skirt through the bitterest winters because pants were not considered appropriate for “young ladies” in, yes, you guessed it, Kansas.