I am not an instinctive hugger of people, even when I know the other person well. It is not that I object to hugs or shy away from physical contact but to me a hug implies a level of intimacy that may not be mutually shared. So I wait for the other person to initiate it before engaging in it. I am also mindful of what female faculty members have told me of male faculty colleagues who hug too closely, too long, and in too encompassing a way, so that they felt uncomfortable. One female faculty member volunteered to demonstrate to me what she often experienced. She played the role of the male hugger, and I could immediately sense why it would feel awkward to be at the receiving end of such hugs.
But the tearful forgiveness and the tight embrace hug seem to be a staple of the reality TV format and recently hugs as symbols of reconciliation have been in the news. One was in the case of the police officer Amber Guyger who was sentenced to ten years in prison for her role in the killing of Botham Jean in his own apartment when she entered it, thinking that he was an intruder in hers. The case aroused great anger because it seemed like yet another case of trigger-happy police shooting black people without any cause or warning. After her sentencing was announced by the judge, Jean’s brother Brandt Jean said that he forgave Guyger and they hugged in court.
This caused considerable discussion. To be clear, as a private individual, Brandt Jean has every right to forgive Guyger and give her a hug. Some critics were concerned that his gesture may be interpreted more broadly to imply that the black community as a whole had forgiven her when that was not the case. Indeed many people felt that Guyger had got off too lightly. They also said that they were tired of the fact that there was constant pressure on the black community to forgive the white community for their crimes against them.
But others were confused, troubled and outraged. They saw the latest feel-good episode in a long history of black people extending quick absolution to white people in the face of horrific wrongs.
“Black people, when they experience injustice, there’s almost an expectation that we will immediately forgive and therefore can sort of move on,” Jemar Tisby, an African American historian and writer, told The Washington Post. “So I think a lot of people are reacting — that we have a right to be angry, a right to grieve, and a right to want justice.”
…Back in 2015, others found the attitudes of the Charleston shooting victims’ families hard to comprehend. In a New York Times article titled “Why I Can’t Forgive Dylann Roof,” writer Roxane Gay expressed wonder at the reactions and slammed a society she called overeager for the mourners’ compassion.
“White people embrace narratives about forgiveness so they can pretend the world is a fairer place than it actually is, and that racism is merely a vestige of a painful past instead of this indelible part of our present,” she wrote.
Far more problematic in the Guyger case was that the judge also came down from the bench, gave Guyger a Bible, recommended a verse from it, also hugged her, and prayed with her. The judge is not a private individual. She is representing the state and the public and this act was unprofessional and her mixing in of religion was appalling.
Legal experts had questions for Kemp, too. Kenneth Williams, a professor at the South Texas College of Law in Houston, said he’d never seen anything like Wednesday’s interaction with Guyger in his 30 years of legal practice. It was not only rare but inappropriate, he said, since Kemp might have to weigh in on further case developments if Guyger appeals.
“She has indicated an affinity or sympathy for the defendant,” he said, suggesting the case might have to go to another judge.
I blame reality TV for this trend. So we should not be surprised that reality TV personality turned president Donald Trump also tried to arrange a made-for–TV forgiveness and hugging session that went completely off the rails when the aggrieved people refused to play along.
President Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he considers his adventures as the leader of the free world to be part of some sort of elaborate reality TV show. On Tuesday, he saw an opportunity for some big-league ratings by exploiting a grieving British couple whose 19-year-old son was killed this summer. The plan for this particular episode was to invite the couple to the White House for… [pause for the drumroll] a surprise visit with the woman responsible for their son’s death. It didn’t go so well.
On August 27th, Harry Dunn, a 19-year-old from the United Kingdom, was killed after his motorcycle was struck by a woman driving a car down the wrong side of the street. According to British police, the woman was Anne Sacoolas, the 42-year-old wife of an American diplomat. Sacoolas returned to the United States in September after claiming diplomatic immunity, and hasn’t been seen since. The British government wants her to come back to the U.K. to, as Prime Minister Boris Johnson put it, “engage properly with the processes of law as they are carried out in this country.” Dunn’s parents agree, and have been in the U.S. lobbying for her return.
On Tuesday, they went to the White House to meet with Trump. But after arriving they quickly learned the president aimed to steer them into a surprise, daytime talk show-style encounter with Sacoolas, who was waiting for them in another room of the White House. Photographers were ready.
What, exactly, was the president thinking? According to White House officials spoken to by the Washington Post, aides were worried about thrusting the grieving parents into a meeting with the woman driving the car that killed their son, but Trump believed he could solve the problem and wanted a “hug and make up moment.” The president even sought to stage a scene in which Sacoolas would emerge through a side door to meet Dunn’s parents, according to the Daily Beast.
The grieving parents weren’t having it.
Trump, as might be expected, tried to put the best face on the debacle but in the process said something stupid, as might be expected.
When Charles tried to explain to the president that if it was his son he would be trying to get justice for him, Trump acknowledged this was true and that he would try to look at the case “from another angle,” without elaborating.
While speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Trump noted that Dunn and Charles did not want to meet with Sacoolas, but he found a way to recast his disaster as a success.
“My meeting with the family was really, uh, beautiful, in a certain way,” Trump said. “It was very sad. They lost their son. I believe it was going down the wrong way, because that happens in Europe.”
That’s certainly looking at it from another angle.
And that was not all. The parents say they were even treated badly by Trump’s aides.
Dunn’s parents had only hoped to convince Trump to send Sacoolas back to the U.K. for justice, not to meet her in person. Radd Seiger, the family spokesman, who appeared on CNN with the family, added that during the visit, new National Security Adviser Robert C. O’Brien “snarled” at him and jeered that Sacoolas “would never return” to the U.K.
…In an email to The Daily Beast on Thursday, Seiger shot down White House denials that photographers were present for the supposed meetup. “We do not know who the photographer(s) were or which organization they were from,” the family spokesman said. “But they were there and had cameras and were clearly poised to grab that “poster picture shot” in the event that the president’s callous plan had come off.”
I have got tired of saying that just when I thought Trump could sink no longer, he does. The problem is that with most people they go low in just one or a couple of areas. But in Trump’s case he sinks low in so many areas that it is easy for him to break his previous lows. He is like the Mark Spitz of breaking norms, competing in many different events.
Faux journalist Jonathan Pie takes a break from covering British politics and the Brexit saga to look at what is happening over here, at Trump’s cheesy publicity stunt, trying to get a photo op between the grieving parents and the person who killed their son in a road accident and claim that credit for a big reconciliation, and his sudden abandonment of the Kurds. (Language advisory.)
Other people are like toys to him, there for his amusement.
Reality TV was a consequence of the writers’ union going on strike. Rather than pay writers a decent wage, Hollywood responded by shifting nearly half their content to unscripted. I.e.: shove Ozzy Osbourne or any other has-been who needs money in front of a camera and pay them with “exposure and stardom” so they can monetize themselves in the after-market. It was a brilliant though sleazy exploitative move.
This particular case illustrates one of the big problems the rest of the world, including it’s allies, have with the USA, namely that if at all possible the USA will stop it’s citizens from being prosecuted in another country even if they are guilty and even if they admit they are guilty. There are no doubts in this case, Sacoolas hit and killed Harry Dunn while driving on the wrong side of the road, she admits this and there is evidence showing this was the case. So what does the USA do? Have her say she will co-operate with the police investigation, then whip her out of the country asserting she has diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity does not cover killing the citizens of the country in which you are a diplomat except in exceptional circumstances, which this is not. It also ceases once you leave the country to which you are a diplomat and the Dunns are considering pusuing a civil case against Saccolas in the USA; I wonder if the US Government will pay her legal bills and any damages awarded against her?
He’s not reaching a new low, he’s always been at this level. What’s different is that he now has the opportunity to cause an international incident in the process.
Somewhat tangential to the main point, but (contrary to almost all reporting) Jonathan Sacoolas is not a diplomat, and neither he nor his wife have diplomatic immunity.
Far more problematic in the Guyger case was that the judge also came down from the bench, gave Guyger a Bible, recommended a verse from it, also hugged her, and prayed with her.
IANAL grounds for a mistrial and judicial discipline?
Have her say she will co-operate with the police investigation, then whip her out of the country asserting she has diplomatic immunity.
And the diplomatic immunity assertion seems to be a TOTAL lie. She is the wife of an American gov’t employee working at GCHQ.
Interestingly enough, I remember a case in Ottawa where a Russian diplomat , a real diplomat, struck and killed a pedestrian while driving drunk.
The Diplomat really did have diplomatic immunity. He was returned to Russia where he was tried, sentenced, and went to prison.
Back in the 1980’s when I was serving in Turkey, an airman hit a policeman while driving the wrong way down a one-way street. The airman was released from jail on bail, and then legal team asked the Turkish authorities what would happen if they spirited the airman out of the country. The legal team was told that if they did so any future arrests of US Military personnel would result in person charged not receiving bail. The airman stayed for the trial.
The Sacoolas case will make it much harder for any American citizen in any country in the world to be allowed to leave jail after being charged with a crime. The lack of foresight of the results of not returning her to face trial, of allowing her to avoid responsibility for her actions, is appalling.
That’s reasonable. I’m happy to hug people, but before hugging another person for the first time, I will always ask, “Do you like hugs?”
Moreover, I also expect other people to ask me first before they touch me in any way. If another person touches me without first making sure that I want to be touched, then that’s a threat, a minor red flag. Sure, the person I’m dealing with might be simply outgoing and from a different culture where casual hugs are the norm, but there’s also some probability that they might be a nasty person who disrespects other people’s preferences and ignores their personal space. Hence a minor red flag.
When friends (or friendly acquaintances) hug me, then that’s showing affection. When strangers hug me or touch me in any other way without asking for permission, then that’s a threat. I really hate how some people believe that touching other people without even asking them is part of the flirting etiquette and therefore somehow acceptable. The mere fact that somebody else wants to hug me or touch my hands or shoulders or knees or whatever doesn’t mean that I should be OK with it. Of course, I have to tolerate such occasions, and don’t make a scene in such situations, but I do make a mental note to stay away from the person who didn’t even bother to ask me. Amusingly enough, when people ask me, I agree pretty much always, because I do like friendly hugs. I just want the reassurance that the other person cares about my preferences and is willing to respect them.
This expectation is just so stupid. In some situations it’s better for people to move on and forget that other person who hurt them, but being expected to hug somebody whom you have reasons to dislike is just ridiculous.
Andreas @#9,
I remember many years ago a physics major I taught and with whom I had many discussions. When she graduated, she came to my office, as some students do, to say farewell and we chatted for a while about her experiences as a student and her future plans. As it came time for her to leave, it was the moment when a hug would be appropriate. But she was an Orthodox Jew and physical contact between members of the opposite sex who are not family members is prohibited. So we both stood there awkwardly for a moment, without exchanging even a handshake, and then she left. It did not feel like a real farewell because the handshake or the hug usually signals the end of the meeting and it left me feeling vaguely dissatisfied. I think that was the case for her too.
Before accusing Mr Trump, read about the case of Louise Woodward and find who paid for her defense.
@11, what is your point? Help a guy out!
Japanese-style bows work well. And you can always plead “oops too much kendo”
That’s another example of how religions poison everything. Some shitty outdated religious “law” won’t even allow people to be friendly the way how they would prefer.
Personally, I don’t really fully qualify as either male or female, thus for me there is no opposite sex. On top of that, I’m also bisexual. For me it makes no difference whether I’m hugging a man or a woman.
The very fact that there exist religious (or cultural) rules that limit allowed interactions between opposite sexes annoys me immensely. Whenever I travel, I do so on a budget, which means sharing rooms with other people. Hostels routinely shovel me into women’s rooms based on what’s written in my passport, and I hate it immensely. I also hate being forced to use women’s dressing rooms in the gyms. The very fact that gender segregated spaces exist means that I will be forcefully sent to places where I don’t belong (I’m female assigned at birth, but I prefer to live as a man).
This means that some places and activities are de facto off limits for me. For example, I can go to a nudist beach, but I cannot go to a regular swimming pool, because there is no gender segregation in nudist beaches, but swimming pools usually have separate dressing rooms and they also demand me to wear female swimwear, because I haven’t had a breast removal surgery.
My own life would be simpler if there existed no religious or cultural rules limiting what’s considered appropriate interactions between men and women.
Andreas @#14,
I can see how immensely complicated it must be for you to navigate just ordinary everyday life. Things that cisgender people take for granted and can do without even thinking now require careful planning and constant awareness of one’s situation. And yet there are many people who would like to make things even harder rather than easier because of outdated ways of thinking.