"Most Whipped" Yearbook Photo Goes Awry

IMAGE(http://img.coxnewsweb.com/B/00/47/39/image_1539470.jpg)

Please tell me i'm not the only person who started laughing their butts off.

The Boy's Mother Wants It Yanked

Students voting on superlatives â€" a staple of yearbooks for decades â€" elected Richards as "Most Whipped" by his girlfriend, using the slang term for a person who is controlled by another in a relationship. The accompanying photo shows Richards, who is black, on a leash held by Melissa Finley, who is white.

Nobles wants the books recalled.

"I know it's supposed to be in fun, but there are people still having trouble with African-Americans' past and this will be offensive," said Nobles, who said the picture reminded her of the poster for the 1970s miniseries Roots, which featured a manacled slave. "This picture, to me, is very distasteful."

Another photo, of the winners of the "Most Likely To Be On Jerry Springer" category, features a male student pretending to be on the verge of hitting a female with the back of his hand.

The pictures are inappropriate, school district spokesman Nat Harrington said. The professional standards committee will investigate the situation, Harrington said, and there could be "serious disciplinary consequences" for yearbook adviser Jordan Barenburg and "anyone else who should have brought it to the forefront for review before it was published."

Harrington said the review likely will include Principal William Latson.

"We expect the adviser to apply good judgment, good common sense, ethical standards, moral standards and standards that reflect the level of respect and dignity we expect in our schools," Harrington said.

Just wow. One wonders if the kids had any idea this might look bad, or if they just went with it anyway. Also, Edwin, what's with Florida since 1999? Is there excess Lithium in the drinking water or something?

The state was f*cked up WAY before 1999. My view: It's the kids yearbooks not the admin or the parents, let them having the fun and stay the f*ck out.

I'm changing my sig.

IMAGE(http://img275.echo.cx/img275/2998/spflag3kp.th.gif)
Remember the lesson of the Southpark flag.

Didn't I see you flying that over your trailer last weekend?

Ummm...

Ok... we had pictures involving kids bribing teachers, a guy on a skateboard in a speedo with fake chest and... not so chest hair and one or two people cross-dressing in our yearbook.

For the love of God parents... WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME VISUAL STIGMAS! Deal with it!

Still... I'm not sure why the mom didn't say it looks like her son is about to be lynched versus the whole on a leash thing.

Edit: Actually, the one for Jerry Springer DOES sound a little distasteful... but then again, it's my experience that the whole wife-beating area is a little devoid of humor.

That is hilarious.

Anyway, the only racist thing in the whole story is the mother's reaction.

Whatever.

From Richards...this is classic...

"We don't see a problem with it," Richards said before referencing the Roots character that haunted his mother when she saw the photo. "Kunta Kinte â€" that was over 300 years ago."

the kids got a point...lol

Yeah, in a really strange way I think this could be a really good sign. If we are at a generation where kids can take a photo like that, and neither of them think of slavery, oppression, and the mastery and subservience that comes with it, that might be just what we have been aiming for all along.

It may also say that kids today are morons who have no grasp of history or symbolism.

Normal people would be glad to see such a display of integration and de-segregation between our youth. But I guess there are some people out there for whom there is just no pleasing!

If we are at a generation where kids can take a photo like that, and neither of them think of slavery, oppression, and the mastery and subservience that comes with it, that might be just what we have been aiming for all along.

Well I don't know about all that... he is "most whipped" after all.

SlyFrog wrote:

It may also say that kids today are morons who have no grasp of history or symbolism.

I vote for that one.. this is the Florida educational system mind you. Not what I would call the most highly rated in the country.

Plus do they even teach the Civil War anymore in the South? Or do they skip from the Mexican war right to The Spanish American one?

Yeah, in a really strange way I think this could be a really good sign. If we are at a generation where kids can take a photo like that, and neither of them think of slavery, oppression, and the mastery and subservience that comes with it, that might be just what we have been aiming for all along.

It may also say that kids today are morons who have no grasp of history or symbolism.

Or maybe they just don't care. Still, I'd rather think it's the first one.

buzzvang wrote:
Yeah, in a really strange way I think this could be a really good sign. If we are at a generation where kids can take a photo like that, and neither of them think of slavery, oppression, and the mastery and subservience that comes with it, that might be just what we have been aiming for all along.

It may also say that kids today are morons who have no grasp of history or symbolism.

Or maybe they just don't care. Still, I'd rather think it's the first one.

Well, if they didn't care that would be almost the same as the first one (having the knowledge and not choosing to be bothered by the connection isn't necessarily so bad).

And Mayfield, that's the War of Northern Aggression to you.

On the news they said it was the boy's idea as well.

karmajay wrote:

On the news they said it was the boy's idea as well.

Which makes the mom that much more stupid looking for saying it's some kind of racist image.

The boy = teh uncle tom?

Oh honestly, people will get themselves worked up over the strangest damn things...

If it's the boy's idea, then he's my kind of humorist.

And Mayfield, that's the War of Northern Aggression to you.

Thank you Sly for putting in the factual and historical name that war for those less educated in the ways of the force!

Pigpen wrote:
And Mayfield, that's the War of Northern Aggression to you.

Thank you Sly for putting in the factual and historical name that war for those less educated in the ways of the force!

Oh yeah, that whole Ft Sumter thing was just a "pre-emptive" strike then in self-defence.

I've got to say, my only take on this is the first thought that went through my head when I saw the picture: "Girl's kinda cute."
Other than that, I just don't care. You can find a symbol of anything in almost anything else if you look hard enough. Just enjoy the cute girl (or guy) and move on. Next item please.

Oh yeah, that whole Ft Sumter thing was just a "pre-emptive" strike then in self-defence.

I believe that was a polite southern way of saying "get the f*** off my porch, yankee boyz." Then you all have to go and invade, for no damn good reason...

hence - Northern Aggression...

Ummm... haven't several wars come about from a SINGLE attack like that?

No offense guys, but that name for the Civil War, as far as I'm concerned... is only proof of how stupid people can be when they try to write their own history and try to make it sound like they were always right... kinda like a certain individual in power today... hmmmmm... I wonder what he calls the Civil War. *rubs chin*

Pigpen wrote:
Oh yeah, that whole Ft Sumter thing was just a "pre-emptive" strike then in self-defence.

I believe that was a polite southern way of saying "get the f*** off my porch, yankee boyz." Then you all have to go and invade, for no damn good reason...

hence - Northern Aggression...

Oooh, ooh, what else can we rename?!?

Mayfield wrote:

Oh yeah, that whole Ft Sumter thing was just a "pre-emptive" strike then in self-defence.

Why was the North even there? Who asked them to come? I mean, what do you expect, when an imperialistic superpower, such as the North, decides to dictate terms to an entire region with a different culture, forcefully establish a military presence, and tells them how their cultural and societal ways of life are wrong and must be changed, at gunpoint if necessary? They use the excuse of slavery, when that is just a Northern value judgment. If the majority of the people in that region wanted slavery, who was the North to tell them otherwise? And as mentioned, slavery was just a flimsy excuse for the real purpose of the war, which was to maintain access to the important production of cotton and other raw materials to fuel its industries. Does the North's hunger for cotton give them the right to invade? Wouldn't you resist if someone invaded your country?

SlyFrog wrote:

I mean, what do you expect, when an imperialistic superpower, such as the North, decides to dictate terms to an entire region with a different culture, forcefully establish a military presence, and tells them how their cultural and societal ways of life are wrong and must be changed, at gunpoint if necessary? They use the excuse of slavery, when that is just a Northern value judgment. If the majority of the people in that region wanted slavery, who was the North to tell them otherwise?

I won't go into the humorous current events angle on this, but I must ask...

Where exactly does Slavery fit into all of this on a moral level for revisionists then?

I'm asking this completely honestly, because i've seen the Civil War debated multiple times in a lot of places, and one of the recurring themes i've seen among revisionists is one of "**** the North, it's our land, we'll do what we want with it and the slaves." Which I guess I can understand...

...No, no, no I can't. I try real, real, really freaking hard, and it just doesn't click. There's something i'm missing, and i'm begging you to explain it to me, because i'm drawing a blank here.

EDIT: I know when we look at the conflict in its time period, we're looking at it in a historical bubble of sorts, so we have to use the morals and values of the time, which is fine. But, I don't know, something about discounting it entirely as just "one of those historical things" seems so... seedy, for lack of a better term.

The South had slavery, the north had their sweat shops and 8 year old kids working 60 hour weeks, and Satan and kiddie porn I bet too!

Slavery was wrong, and was a dying institution - it was the north's aggression that triggered this though...

I kinda view the North like China...willing to sacrifice a few million people to keep the 'man' down...sigh

Sly - thanks for making me laugh!

Oooh, ooh, what else can we rename?!?

I don't think we renamed it...it was either the war of Northern Aggression or the War Between the States - the Civil War was conjured up by some liberal junkie crackhead taking a toke on his pipe...civil my ass!

Pigpen wrote:

The South had slavery, the north had their sweat shops and 8 year old kids working 60 hour weeks, and Satan and kiddie porn I bet too!

Slavery was wrong, and was a dying institution - it was the north's aggression that triggered this though...

See, that's not really the point i'm talking about here. That's like arguing with some 20-something about Castro's record with political freedom and having him go "But the U.S. did to its citizens..."

Because that's not what you're talking about in said particular discussion. I really don't care about what we call the War, although I liked what Dave Barry came up with ("A Nation Pokes Itself In The Eye").

I personally would like to address what the moral stance of revisionists is on that particular institution. Because the North did have sweatshops for kids. A ton of them. But that's not what i'm talking about.

Prederick wrote:

I won't go into the humorous current events angle on this...

But that was the point of the entire passage.

Prederick wrote:

Where exactly does Slavery fit into all of this on a moral level for revisionists then?

My point as to the intent of the passage being raised, the same response as is given for current forays into repressive regimes, religions and cultural systems, such as those found in the Middle East. "Women are often disenfranchised, are beaten and otherwise abused by men without any risk of repercussion, and may be stoned to death for having pre-marital sex. However, that's their 'culture/religion/society'. It is not our right to cast judgments or interfere. We're trying to impose our standards on them! Our morality shouldn't be their morality!"

SlyFrog wrote:

My point as to the intent of the passage being raised, the same response as is given for current forays into repressive regimes, religions and cultural systems, such as those found in the Middle East. "Women are often disenfranchised, are beaten and otherwise abused by men without any risk of repercussion, and may be stoned to death for having pre-marital sex. However, that's their 'culture/religion/society'. It is not our right to cast judgments or interfere. We're trying to impose our standards on them! Our morality shouldn't be their morality!"

Allright, now i'm flat-out confused. Are we giving other cultures/societies/religions a free pass now?