Child Services takes children from white supremacist mother

Well, if it were just a case of proud heritage then I don't think anyone would have stepped in.

I think that displays of support for Hitler while at a public school are hateful to others, and I know US schools see it that way.

I think it was the ritualistic nature (marking the body with slogans and numbers) of this stuff that got the child taken away:

Child services was called to a city elementary school in March after the girl, 7, arrived at school with a Swastika, the words "Hail Victory" and "Aryan Pride" written on her arms and one leg in permanent maker.

The number "14/88," a reference to Hitler, was also written on the little girl. The 14 refers to the number of words in the slogan: "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children." The 88 stands for HH and means "Heil Hitler."

Poor girl.

White power, black power, brown power, it doesn't matter. Any power based on race is wrong. One day Black History Month will be just as politically incorrect as White History Month would be. Then we'll see some equality.

all i can say to this woman is....lame. lame exuse, lame way to raise children....lame all around.

What an idiot. You can be proud to be who you are, without saying ''Heil Hitler'' or drawing swastikas. The reason why people think it's wrong to be proud to be white, is becauseof people like her.

America_Again can i ask you....

" I don't agree with removing the children for their parents political views"

Would you support taking children away from terrorist parents? Because thats how little kids grow up to become terrorists.


And this is how little kids grow up to commit hate crimes....It is indeed justified to take them away.

Silencenomore,

I absolutely agree with you, Child Services did the right thing by removing this child from an abusive environment. This has nothing to do with political views, it has to do with the psychological and social damage that the parent(s) was inflicting on their child.

From a personal point of view, I work with racist co-workers, all ranging from 16 years of age to 20 something. If these Teens/"adults" had been raised differently, I would not be called a N***** lover daily(since it's widely known that I'm voting for Barack.)

America-Again,

It's true that Education is the key, however education starts at home, and if that home is filled by racists those kids will be getting a bad education.

And people do need to be protected from themselves, humans can be brilliant, kind, and caring animals, but they also can be stupid, shortsighted, ignorant and arrogant.

If you realize it pretty well, it has always been white people the ones that want to separate from any other race. It is this superiority nonesense, this unspoken racism and this blatant discrimination that has put you on this spot.
It is indeed very hard to be proud to be white. why? because across history, every white man that was proud of being white, also commited a lot of race crimes.

In an interview, the mother said: "It's OK to be proud to be a native, it's OK to preach black power," she said, before adding, "But when you're white and you're proud, it's wrong."


Has this woman EVER taken a History lesson?! Also, being proud of your heritage is one thing; sporting images that are closely tied to an oppressive and racist regime like Nazism is quite another, especially if you make your 7 year-old child wear them to school. That little girl probably doesn't understand all the baggage that's attached to a symbol like that and what did the mother expect to happen anyway? My mind... she is boggled.

Simply put. If a black parent did this and that child was removed by child services then half of the nation would be up in arms.

Alright! All white supremacists and bigoted assholes should have their kids taken away.

This is setting a very bad precedent that Child Protective Services KNOWS who is a good parent and bad parent based on what they think and their political views are.

Unless they have proof that the parents are hindering or hurting the child physically or mentally and not providing for them and loving them they have no right to remove them based on thoughts.

Because if they are allowed to do this with this parent they will surely do it with another who thinks like a democrat or thinks like a republican or has religious views....this is boundless.

They had no right to remove them and their thoughts on this is just as prejudice as they are trying to make her out to be. Horrible idea.

free speech . there can be no exceptions .
anti- gay protesters are allowed signs saying "god hates fags " , blacks are allowed to wear malcom x t-shirts , anyone can sport a rebel flag , christians are allowed to display crucifixes , R.L. Burnside had an album cover wearing an SS officers cap , ww2 re-enactors wear full uniforms - the list goes on .
"indoctrination" is everywhere and so far as neo-nazi "hate crime" , it's statistically negligible in this country .

the only reason black parents teach the children about being proud of being black is because of the predjiduce that African-Americans still face. And for them to take her children away she must be telling them other things then being proud of there race.

White supremacists often condone violence and a hatred of other races. It's vile to indoctrinate a child into an insane dogmatic system, and give them no alternative views.

give the woman back her kid. as shitty as it is that parents still raise their kids with active and malicious hate, she can do that. but is it necessary to write all that nonsense on her arms?

The best interest of the kid would be for her to grow up without bigotry and hate. The neo-nazis are pissants and cowards, and I think we should respond to their hate by hating them. They shouldn't poison a child like they poison youths so often. They take disenfranchized youth and tell them that the root of their problem is non-whites.

Fuck the neo-nazis, fuck white supremacy.

I never heard "black power" types talking about having a genocide of all non-blacks. White supremacists have a tendency to be very violent. They're not above killing people for little more than their skin color.

I think most people are against white pride when it gets eugenic and out right racist.Seriously just google white pride, and you'll see it filled with racial crap. But the reason why black pride is not racist is mostly because we blacks do not know where we came from.

is it AMERICAN to preach the teachings of HITLER?

to be free to teach anything , so long as it doesn't violate the separation of church and state , is the essence of "American" .

the kids have a better chance in life in foster care than with a racist mother raising them.

So much ignorance. I'm not surprised to see the wholly inaccurate parallels between white supremacy and the Black Panther movement, nor at the predictable conversation path of where of deflecting the conversation; the merits of removing a child from a white supremacist household vs pointless speculation about homosexuals and Black Americans. This topic has nothing to do with Black Americans or homosexuals, but once again, we find it being steered in the direction. Let's clear up this Black Panther point. Historically speaking, the Black Panthers were a charitable organization that believed in self reliance and pride in being a Black American in the face of adversity. The provided food, education and social awareness to the people they served. Yes, one of their principles was self defense, which is often sensationalized as being militant, especially against white folks, but this is an ignorant and uneducated view point that can be solved with a bit of reading about the organization. There is no parallel between the Black Panthers and the white supremacist movement and to suggest that is, yes, ignorance. And I'm not going to give any credence to the thought that homosexuals are more detrimental to our society than white supremacist thought. The very implication is laughable at best. And make no mistake, white supremacists are, in fact, domestic terrorists. Not a believer? Let's break it down a bit.

1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
-Dictionary.com

I could go back to the 60's and cite the lynching, assassinations, beatings the were perpetrated against Black Americans, which oddly enough is not seen commonly as terrorism, but when a non white person commits these very same acts, it is, but I won't. That's another conversation. Let's make it modern. We all remember the Jena 6, correct. No, I am not going to argue the case. But I will highlight some of the intimidating tactics used to dissuade people who didn't agree with the verdict.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/09/21/car.nooses/index.h...

Brings it home a bit. In the final analysis, I would say any household that advocates this kind of behavior to solve differences is not healthy for a child. I know this topic will go on and on about the merits of child services, but we need to ask ourselves are we truly comfortable with leaving a child in the care of a person who would brand them with markings of hate and intolerance? I would seriously question the judgement of anyone who argue in favor of this.

Back to the topic at hand of taking the children away from the children.

I think that if the parents were teaching white supremacy that it is arguable the children should have been taken from the parents. If the parents were teaching the kids to be proud of a European American heritage (aka, proud of being white) then that is another thing.

Can't we walk down the street being proud of who we are and not what we look like?

I just called up a social worker friend of mine, and then talked to another friend who is a psychologist.

The social worker had reservations about taking a child away from a home in this type of situation, however they said if you can prove mental/psychological damage, or if the parents are showing the child violent images (like lynching, torture, murder) of a specific group of people and saying that's okay, then you would have a case.

The Psychologist stated it would be prudent to remove the child from the home.

Scary stuff. That anyone should condone the state removing children from the parents because the parents don't conform to the states idea of how to raise children is scary. There is increasing desire by the government to control the thoughts, speech and child rearing in this country. This is one example. The recent actions in Texas in the removal of 400+ children from their parents is one example. The Fairness Doctrine is another.
Nazism is a scourge. The world would be a lot better without it but is it any different between this and us invading Iraq to change their government to one which we approve of?
Doesn't approval of the states action in this case open the door to approval of state action in ANY other area deemed wrong? Where do we stop?

Yeah I’m going to call bullshit on this story. There has to be something else going on that would warrant such an action. Just because a parent allows a child to wear a swastika to school does not give social services the ability to take your kids. I’m guessing the parents said or did something that this article has not mentioned.

I like how the article alludes to a dangerous situation but fails to mention what that could possibly be. I doubt a bunch of elementary students understand what a swastika represents and I seriously doubt any of them would respond to such an image with violence. If the parents were truly raising their child in a dangerous environment, one that would warrant such action, I think the reporter would of acknowledged such in his article.

Then again who knows? Maybe social services freaked out because a combination of things. Like who allows a seven year old to doodle on herself with a permanent, and toxic marker and why is the parent defending this action because it’s a sign of her heritage?

If people woke up in the morning, looked in the mirror and made peace with themselves, this world be such a different place.Alot of this hate is inner hate which is passed...People should grow up when they have kids, forget there hate and try to break the cycle.

i think it's telling that so many of the people in support of this child's removal have also come out in support of the heckler's at bush's monticello speech.

both are free speech.

they're being treated as though they're different things.

query whether you would feel this angry toward those hecklers were their children in attendance with them...

juas: that's a bit harsh. i'm part white and i'm very proud of my white heritage and family. you shouldn't be guilty of being white at all. i doubt that every person proud of being white has committed atrocities but if that is the case then maybe i can change it?

also i'm not too sure about the damaging affects of being raised by racist parents. my grandmother was raised by german racist parents. she ended up marrying a black man. till this day she is still attracted to men of every race.

my mother (her daughter, who is half black half german) is slightly racist towards white people and other non-black minorities. i therefor grew up with a lot of pride in being black. but i had no problems with any other race. my mom just had to deal with me dating a white boy and bringing my friends of all races over to hang out.

i know there are plenty of people who learn racism from bad experiences or people other than there parents especially their peers. if that's the case we could ban any interaction with racists.

and regarding the article: if you want to be racist and teach it to your kids go ahead. depending on where they live they might learn that racism is pointless anyway so we have to have hope in the education system.

the girl should not have been marked in anyway that promotes hitler because it is blatantly offensive to the other students and faculty. the woman is trying to push her message using the child and that is why she should be taken away.

wouldn't it be funny if she was adopted by a black family? better yet, a black and asian family with a gay uncle and a mormon cousin; and the mom would move into the atic. fox i want you to pay me before you make this reality show. why am i up at 1:30 doing laundry?

I just wantto point out for everyone using american law and rights and such in this that this happened in canada...not that their rights and such are that much different but still....it weakens your argument

White (as a race/heritage): because of a mesh and inability to pinpoint if one is Italian, German (whatever might be considered white)

Black: Same thing, except it's because of slavery and europeans taking blacks from Africa.

White Supremacy: Bad. It's a usage of culture to justify the "We're better than them" mentality

Black Supremacy: Lesser known (though debatalbe involvement. There's that guy that said "Kill white people" on C-Span.)

Black Power & White Power: Is usually ok. White power in the form of pride in European roots. Black Power is ok since it's difficult to pinpoint where exactly the African roots lie (unless you actually live in Nigeria or Kenya).

And no heratige should be used to justify supremacy over any race.

You know, if the article didn't say she was a white supremest, I would've have taken the swastika as a meaning of happiness or to be good.

And only people who understand what I mean knows the history behind the swastika.

The question I have is where does personal freedom end and the law begin? Heroin is illegal because of the harm it does to a person and society. Couldn't you equate advocating messages of hate to children to do the same?

But at the same time, if a neo-nazi's child is taken away from her because of their personal beliefs, what is the framework under which other children can be taken away? If you live with a racist grandmother who hates chinese people but doesn't take action against them, does child services have a right to remove a child from that home based on the fact that the grandmother could cause mental distress?