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.
Gary T; You are right. It is not okay.
Eric; No, I am not a Saddam Loyalist. But I like to live with eyes wide open.
As far as Friedfeld, he’s very patronizing and stripping the muggers of their agency and moral agency as human beings. It’s like he’s talking about people who are mentally incapable of culpability or perhaps animals. Then expanding that rationalization to whole classes of people. Othering is exactly what he’s doing.
Jane: “In one country we have killed hundred of thousands of Iraqi civilians and made homeless more.”
You’re a Saddam loyalist and/or Qutbist?
What a pathetic twit! I hope he gets mugged again, and this time the muggers beat the crap out of him. Like a drug addict, he hasn’t been hurt enough yet. I wrote a poem last year after the Trayvon Martin silliness just for dumba$$, white idiots like him:
A Post-Trayvon Goodnight Prayer
A Short Poem by Squeeky Fromm
Now I lay me down to sleep,
I pray the Lord my soul to keep.
And if my liberal friends get mugged,
Please let it be a young Black thug!
So when they get a busted snout,
And all their brains are running out,
They’ll gently go to those good nights
As Champions of Civil Rights!
Amen.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Perhaps Oliver Friedfield would go on a field trip to the UAE and discover why an American kindergarten teacher was murdered recently. How does he explain why “privileged” people commit crimes?
Old George, Robin Hood didn’t take from the rich, he took from the govt.
Jim22 – in a feudal economy the rich were either the lords (local government) or the church. Robin Hood stole from both.
I appreciate his forgiveness, his apparent rush to judgment based on, I am assuming color, I do not.
So if you don’t have what you want, you can just mug someone and be content knowing the person you mugged has “privilege guilt”. What a ridiculous argument.
First of all, arbitrarily declaring that these muggers were just committing a violent act to “feed their children” is specious at best. As others have mentioned, there are myriad options out there to “feed your children”. Funny how they have the money for a pistol, but not food.
Second, and I can’t stress this enough: We are NOT all created equal. Some of us are smarter than others, some of us are more willing to work that others, and some of us don’t place material possessions at the top of their priority list as others do. People continue to cling to the belief that given ‘opportunity’, ANYONE can achieve the same success that others have. It’s wrong, and it’s destructive to continue to support this fallacy. Yes, most of us can achieve enough success to have a home, and secure our future. But we will not all be able to have the sort of success that allows a huge 5 bedroom home, 3 cars, a Rolex watch, etc, etc, etc. If that were the case, there’d be a helluva lot more Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Sam Walton’s out there.
If this kid really feels so bad about his privileged existence that he feels his mugging is justified, he needs to be donating his time to charity. There are tons of them out there.
calypso–exactly. He’s otherizing them.
Someone please introduce me to Mr. Friedfield, I need his wallet and whatever other valuables he has. My point is, at what level of violence or non-violence would Mr. Friedfield give up his personal property? A society without standards of conduct, no matter your social circumstance, is not a society but amalgamation of lawless people acting in any manner they choose. A person might understand Mr. Friedfield forgiving his attackers but not making excuses for them.
His assumptions that his attackers were poor because they were black and further, incapable of moral choice because they were ostensibly poor, are exceptionally racist and condescending.
Oh yes, I definitely agree with this young man and his politically narcissistic statement regarding those who attacked him. “Look at me excusing these poor unfortunates of society and we must start to give back somewhere”
Well, maybe we should pass out more welfare checks as that has done so much good. Or we could have a Piaget Crenshaw like in Ferguson lie about`
a “Hands up don’t shoot” issue and then loot a store and then go back and put out a fire and tell Hannity what a heroine she is
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2014/12/02/looting-video-reveals-key-mike-brown-eye-witness-piaget-crenshaw-participating/
Seriously, I don’t get this generation. They talked about the boomers. Yes, we were selfish. But it was innocent. This is not.
I guess this proves wrong the old saying that a conservative is a liberal who got mugged by reality. This guy got mugged and he’s still clinging to his progressive fantasy that it’s society’s fault that he got mugged.
How, exactly, does this guy know that his muggers live in poverty?
Inga,
“To steal robs the poor person of the little dignity this society affords him.”
Well said.
This young man is wrong. And God help this country when people of his generation start entering the real world. There is a significant difference between understanding your blessings and comfort, to excusing those that want to take with the threat of force.
I have to agree with Charles Barkley on these things. Thugs are thugs and there is no excuse. I will say that this poor kid has been brain-washed somewhere along the line.
I understand why too you dumb schmuck. What is it about schools in DC which makes the “kids” who go there so friggin dumb? Dumb schmuck is one who carries a Smartphone and thinks that their privacy is safe. I am thinking that Dumbschmuck should be one word and not two.
Jane sed:
“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.”
No it is not.
The only difference between being sucked dry by fiat, is that everyone you know is in the same boat, vs someone coming up out the blue at gunpoint just for you, is that you already expect to be robbed and plan for it.
The government(s) take 40% of everything you earn and own, at threatened gunpoint, every year.
That is far more than this mugger took from the fool, who “understands” and celebrates it.
People’s tolerance threshold for abuse is based upon circumstance as much as it based upon the extent of the abuse.
Jane, excellent observation, “same crime, different venue”. No excusing thievery.