It is rare for a college student to trigger a national debate with an opinion column in a student newspaper but, to his credit, Oliver Friedfeld, has done precisely that. Friedfeld wrote an op-ed in the Hoya after he was mugged at gunpoint and defended the black youths who robbed him at gunpoint — a column entitled “I Was Mugged, And I Understand Why” that is drawing praise and ridicule across the country.
The senior explained in the column that
“Last weekend, my housemate and I were mugged at gunpoint while walking home from Dupont Circle. The entire incident lasted under a minute, as I was forced to the floor, handed over my phone and was patted down. And yet, when a reporter asked whether I was surprised that this happened in Georgetown, I immediately answered: ‘Not at all.’ It was so clear to me that we live in the most privileged neighborhood within a city [Washington, D.C.] that has historically been, and continues to be, harshly unequal.
The fact that these two kids, who appeared younger than I, have even had to entertain these questions suggests their universes are light years away from mine.”
Friedfeld appears to argue that it is he — and people like him — who have the most explaining to do: “Who am I to stand from my perch of privilege, surrounded by million-dollar homes and paying for a $60,000 education, to condemn these young men as ‘thugs?’ It’s precisely this kind of ‘otherization’ that fuels the problem.”
It is a thought-provoking piece but one with which I have to disagree. I am not sure what value “otherization” has a social theory, but I disagree that “it’s a lot easier for me to choose good than it may be for them.” This was a crime of violence in a city being ravaged by such violence. Indeed, most such crimes occur in improvised neighborhoods. There is a choice that is made for most people before they reach for a gun and victimize others. Friedfeld insists that this is the price that must be paid for our failure as a society:
As young people, we need to devote real energy to solving what are collective challenges. Until we do so, we should get comfortable with sporadic muggings and break-ins. I can hardly blame them. The cards are all in our hands, and we’re not playing them.
While I commend Friedfeld for writing about his views, I find the sentiments expressed to be more moral relativism that has taken hold of our society. Many families in this country faced terrible poverty but did not turn to violent crime. They made a difficult choice that stayed faithful to the most basic tenets of a moral life. To relieve these men of moral responsibility for their act is to discard any notion of personal responsibility and choice.
I strongly condemn those who are attacking Friedfeld. He offers a personal and genuine view of the relative differences between his privileged life and the life of these muggers. Where I disagree with him is not that comparison, but his conclusion. I can see why Friedfeld does not feel victimized (particularly since he was not shot in the encounter), but that does not make these men any less of criminals. In other words, the wealth differential has more relevance to defining his level of victimization than it does excusing their level of criminalization.
Regardless of the merits, Friedfeld certainly produced something positive from the experience in triggering this national debate. While I disagree with him, the column is an effort by a college student to draw meaning out of such an experience.
I agree with everything this young man said up to the point that poor people are forced into committing crimes. Starvation would be one thing, but thieving for spending money is another all together. To steal robs the poor person of the little dignity this society affords him.
One of the ways to deal with inequality of purchasing power is to rob from the rich and give to the poor. The governments, the modern Robin Hoods, openly practice income redistribution.
One human way to deal with self-poverty is called theft and robbery and fraud. (Rob from the rich and give to the poor; and I’m poor.) Pretty generally held to be wrong — at least within the in-group. Even organized criminals frown on stealing from each other.
Is that way the only choice for some? Really?
sorry for the excess bolds
I’m just saying what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
And he’s clearly never read Kipling’s The Gods of the Copybook Headings (excerpt below), which covered this ground better than Oliver Friedfeld’s teachers did, who failed him so terribly.
“In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
…
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!“
Moral relativism; differences in moral judgements across different people and cultures, is definitely the problem here in this post. It’s okay to steal LARGE amounts of money, from a plethora of people, if it is done by your government, or your company, and if the thieves are attractive, socially acceptable people of already considerable wealth, status and erudition. But if you are a “loser” lacking all the credentials of the bigger thieves and murderers, and you walk away with a few dollars and a cell phone you can pawn, then you must be captured and physically and monetarily punished and ostracized. We, our government and many of our businesses in the banking and military industrial complex have robbed, destroyed, murdered and plundered,en masse for profit and are admired by many. In one country we have killed hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians and made homeless more. And yet we sleep well. The elite have no problem pushing themselves to the front of the line, or maybe they are so obtuse and disconnected as to not even be aware that they are hurting those below them. I applaud the young Georgetown student for thinking. He did not absolve the man’s guilt, but it seems the incident is making him search himself to make sure that he does not unwittingly join with others in commiting the same crime in a different venue as he steps into adulthood.
http://ellenbrown.com/2014/12/01/new-rules-cyprus-style-bail-ins-to-hit-deposits-and-pensions/
“I strongly condemn those who are attacking Friedfeld. ”
I do not condemn him, but his thinking, which is flabby, sophomoric, and replete with the SJW terminology he has thoughtlessly parroted.
He should have read Kipling instead of Zinn. (emphasis mine)
“It is always a temptation for a rich and lazy nation,
To puff and look important and to say: —
“Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away.”
And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we’ve proved it again and again,
ZThat if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.
It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
For fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
You will find it better policy to say: —
“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
No matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
And the nation that pays it is lost!”“
This kid’s entire column reeks of the type of racism practiced by liberals…Oh “I can hardly blame” these kids as they can’t help themselves because “our universes are light years apart…” Crap. And this kid is probably smart enough to know that what he is spewing is pure crap. I work with quite a few people (white, black, Hispanic) that grew up disadvantaged and not one of them would tolerate this nonsense. Despite growing up poor (but from very different parts of the country) they all have one thing in common: they work their ass off and take responsibility for their own actions. This whole “they can’t help themselves” argument is just racist nonsense.
I do not agree with this gentleman’s position for the reasons stated by our host.
He does not to me seem to grasp how perilous his and the other victim’s lives were in that situation. It is not something to take lightly.
His same argument should then apply to rape, given that the offending males have reduced opportunity for sex, and the victimized women are on their perches of privilege.
Maybe he would understand being shot. What an arrogant fool.
Just as power corrupts so does the lack of it.
I think he really needs to be mugged again. So he can understand again.
A true moron. How about if the criminals shot him and he ended up a quadrapalegic. Would he also “understand” that? Would he defend the thugs from his wheelchair writing his op-Ed via a tube/mouthpiece device?
I don’t know this twits religious background, but there is a substantial difference between forgiving his transgressors and defending their actions. Without knowing specific facts about his beloved thugs, how can he even offer a defense? Was the robbery to get $$ for groceries or medicine, or for crack or meth? Suppose it was just for fun. Picking on the White boy to get a few bucks? Suppose his beloved thugs shot his roommate? How would the roommate’s parents look upon the “white guilt” justification?
I agree that their behavior is inexcusable. It is possible to grow up poor, on welfare for a time, in a one-parent household, and be moral and law-abiding. My siblings and I did it.
Sharon, these young men were not Jean Valjean in 1800s France, stealing bread to feed a child close to death from starvation. If they are struggling to put bread on the table, there is SNAP, WIC, food pantries, soup kitchens, and churches.
It is not amoral to take an offered helping hand (and there are plenty of people offering help). I betcha that if this young man had been asked for money to help them out, he would have given some, if not all he had in his wallet. They did not need to take it by force.
Good call Professor. I firmly believe that moral relativism is possibly the core problem of our country. Instead of values and ideals that held dear, any negative situation starts with, “but… .” Without a common concrete basis of values, it is hard for this diverse group that is our country to continue.
Good for the young student. Mugging is a symptom of desperation. The symptoms are much easier to deal with than treating the actual condition of desperation. Just throw them in prison but not anything to correct the desperation that drove a person to crime, drugs, prostitution. What other real options exist for people without money, without available jobs, without skills, often without literacy, without connections, without parents who have any of those things, often with life-long learning disorders and who are filled with resentment towards those who have all the advantages, while also being under the watchful eye of a police force looking for low-hanging fruit rather than going after the real criminals hiding behind concrete edifices, iron gates, and surrounded by body guards?
We don’t treat infectious, genetic, deadly disease by throwing the victim in prison. We provide sustenance, protection, scientific and technological state of the art treatments. What we have is an epidemic of the deadly disease of desperation, caused by a long history of oppression, rejection, and cultural degradation. That whole dynamic needs to be reversed, and in fact it is slowly being reversed. We need to speed up the positive march to reverse past wrongs.
The umbrella for all explanation that leads to harmony is common sense. Beneath that umbrella various groups have created divine, legal, and political umbrellas. Then there is this guy. Common sense can be highly interpretive but it applies to all. This guy is simply trying to set himself apart and perhaps a little above the rest by proposing that he has a credible insight into why thieves are thieves. Regardless of the inequities in America and the nonsensical explanations for why some few are allowed to own almost everything and buy and sell politicians, no one need go hungry in America. Between the government and private charities, no one need go hungry. The only force behind a mugging is that of a sociopathic thief. And, this idiot has just given them more credibility. Just like the gleeful expressions on the Ferguson looters as they exited stores with armfuls of booze, these thieves will not be using their loot to buy toothpaste and canned soup.
Violence and crime should never be excused. I don’t really find this young man’s column courageous– attention grabbing, perhaps but not courageous.
Poor people should not be painted as violent or criminal because of their status. They should how receive help and support instead of giving that help and support to billionaire and bankers.
Violence and crime should never be excused and that includes police officers who choke people to death. The decison by the Grand Jury in the Eric Garner case is wrong and destructive.
I must agree with this upstanding student. Until you have found yourself and your family in an impoverished situation where your children are hungry, you really have no idea what you would do. I know that I am a woman who could do what needs to be done. I do not doubt that I, or any of you, could resort to violence if pushed into a corner you could see no way out of.