Saturday, October 7, 2017

Anonymous Racist Hate Letter: Is it "Fake Hate" ?




There are four things this anonymous letter reveals:

1.  The writer's background
2. The writer's experiences in life
3.  The writer's motive or purpose in writing
4.  Personality traits of the writer


What can you spot?

317 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 317 of 317
Foolsfeedonfolly said...

What if "So work your magic and make it disappear!!!" is actually leakage and the letter is actually written by either the Daycare Owner or someone close to her with knowledge of the mortgage (i.e. one of her family members)? Maybe the letter going public is what's supposed to work "some magic" and make the mortgage disappear. What if the motive for writing the letter is to generate publicity/public outpouring of support for the Daycare/increased enrollment from sympathetic citizens/GoFundMe account to rally and show solidarity for the "targeted" business or business owner or to score money through paid interviews? Conversely, could it be a way to get out of paying the mortgage (assuming it's the Daycare mortgage (i.e. business has fallen off; we're the victims of a racially-motivated boycott by some customers)?

Anonymous said...

- By Willow -
Thank you Christina, Hey Jude, others, and Peter H., for inspiring material.

The letter of the son is from a Trump-supporter (or a group of supporters) who is/are deeply distressed over the fact that D.Trump is connected with racism.
There is a personal, intimately touching tone in the way the writer/s feel motivated to embark on their writing-mission.

In a small daycare community visible support for D.T. and a very dark skinned black employee may for some be strange concepts to marry up. Maybe the discord has become an issue for the daycare business? Someone, or several persons, can have pointed out this ideological dilemma and the owners felt the need to respond.
They needed to stay anonymous, protect the colored worker, and get their message (we don't accept racism and we support D.T.) exposed in public.

The letter contains masking, placement of misleading hints to camouflage the identity of the writer/s.

A light bulb moment took place reading H.J. elaborate on "touching all the nationalities".
The baseball-idiom 'touching all the bases' is modified by hate letter writer competently and elegantly into touching all nationalities as the writer gives credit to the daycare as it tries to include (cover) all the different things (nationalities in their staff) doing their job as they best should.
The writer reveals his appreciation towards this ambition, as does the son, in his written piece later:
"... My mother & father built their company around care for all people & children no matter their race or ability/disabilities to grow equal & together..."

As the daycare owners were pondering over their ideological problem that had arisen in their community, writing an anonymous hate letter was the best solution they could cook up.
The problem absolutely needed to be tackled with as it didn't disappear by time. It threatened already their income and mortgage.
Was it a clever idea, is disputable.
The identity of the black employee cannot be protected nor can the writers keep their anonymity intact.
But have the writers committed a crime? If yes, who is the plaintiff? Who has been injured the most? And what is the legal classification of the perpetators' criminal offense?


Anonymous said...

- By Willow -

The provocating hate letter gives the daycare owners a chance to enforce their values in public. They have already seized this opportunity.
The owners hope to gain sympathy, stop bothersome discussion of their political standing and attract level-headed clientele.
All this they expect to result in financial profit.

Hey Jude said...

Willow, I think you put that very well, it makes good sense. From the daycare's FB page, they have a new centre with new equipment, also they are fully booked - so it all looks good, and a going concern. I wonder if it might be that there has been a drop off in 'all the nationalities' and they are no longer attracting a diverse clientele, if, as looks to be the case, at least some of the owner's family - the son - is known to have voted Trump. If the parents worked hard over years to create an inclusive establishment, and it now is attracting mainly, or only, white people, an anonymous letter targetting a black worker, to which they could respond with disgust, might have seemed like a good idea to one of them, or more.

Why though, would a family who took pride in trying to touch all nationalities - (try - is it no longer the case?) - write a letter which would be hurtful and degrading of the black girl, of whom they write such good things on their FBs? If their client base has changed, does she no longer fit in?

IDK, I am curious as to why the girl was sent 'a copy' rather than 'a copy of this letter'? It seems like there is a withholding of what she was sent, yet it would not have saved her feelings to have not been sent it, as the family posted it online for all to see.

Vicki said...

No one has mentioned this that I saw, but it almost sounds like a political agenda is at hand. Is the daycare owner also in politics and looking for attention? As in we parents who pay your mortgage (taxpayers), with mortgage purposely spelled wrong to signify a less intelligent class. Then we have "work your magic, make it disappear, which politicias can do in authority ... then there is the Trump referral. I'm going to say a light skinned daycare owner, also in politics who has an agenda, who is "dumbing down".

Hey Jude said...

Trump supporters are not exclusively white, so it may not be they have lost their diverse client base - maybe they are also attracting a type of Trump supporter they'd rather not have. They are 'trying to touch all nationalities' - maybe no longer succeeding? If that were so, the black girl may no longer fit, a lighter person would 'blend' more. IDK.

Anonymous said...



Its pathetic & honestly I feel sorry that their children having to grow with such a shitty person as a parent. This shit has gone way too far in America and it needs to stop, everyone choses to blame Trump, however, you cant, people make their own decisions.""

It's pathetic. Honestly, (I have to add that as you know I'd never lie) I feel sorry that their children (the people that pay the mortage) have (not having as it doesn't sound right) to grow (not grow up like most would say) with (distance) such a shitty (flattery will get you everywhere) person as a parent. This (closeness) shit (personal qualities of the parents that pay the mortage) has gone way too far in America (no comma) and it needs to stop (no period) everyone chooses to blame Trump (not this poster, he blames the shitty parents)-inserts well placed comma-however-another comma-you can't (preaching begins once he enters the pulpit)-comma,

PEOPLE MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS (unless you live under the roof of a daycare owner that pays the mortage and tell you what to do and when to do it).


Once he graduates to the 6th grade, they'll let him make more decisions I think.

Hey Jude said...


‘She’s too dark most of the kids is scared of her’ - this is almost comical for the failure to follow it up. If the girl wrote the letter herself in order to create a reason why ‘the kids is scared of her’ - then it would be understandable that she would not enlarge. Blame is not reasonably attached to her, but irrationally. The kids are not scared *by* her, personally - they are scared of her because she is ‘too dark’, which is not a fault, action or failing. If there is any fault, it is not hers. So, I think, yes, if the girl had done something to scare most of the kids, or a single child, and she was anticipating a complaint would be made, she might have written that to account for why the children were scared. I think skin tone is not a concern of very young children, some might be interested, and notice a difference.

The harking on about the skin tone though, and the solution being *maybe* hire a lighter skinned person, is as if the writer really does have an issue with the skin tone - about which no-one would be likely to care, except the writer. Skin lightening, is a big industry, and some girls go to extreme measures to lighten their skin with chemicals, often causing damage and an uneven tone, whilst the successful laser method is expensive. So, it seems it could be the girl is the writer, and the motive is to try and angle funding for a skin procedure, from the successful daycare owner (new daycare centre) who is a ‘friend’. A ‘concerned’ friend has written the letter, and the first expressed concern - I think her priority - is the girl is ‘too dark’.

And there is that ‘she’ where I think a ‘who’ would be expected - as if the writer and the *maybe* new ‘lighter’ hire are (possibly) the same person in the writer’s mind? I wonder does anyone else see it in that way, or am I off track? I

mean this sentence:
‘I see you’re trying to touch all of the nationalities but maybe hire a light skinned black she would blend more and not look like a ‘NANNY’.

Why is that a ‘she’ rather than a “who’? Is she thinking only *maybe’ hire a lighter skinned person, or maybe her ‘friend’ might pay to lighten her skin and avoid an online ‘racist parents target black daycare worker’ furore? The parents’ problem, to the writer, is not that the girl is black, it is that she is too dark - or too black. As others have said, a lighter black person would still be black, so the problem is not racism, if it can be solved by hiring a lighter skinned ‘black’.
If it is only the skin tone which is (allegedly) scaring most of the kids, adjustment to skin tone can, to the writer, solve the problem - there may be no need to hire a lighter skinned black who would blend, because she would blend and not look like a ‘Nanny’. So there is only a *maybe* about hiring a lighter skinned black - the present worker could continue if she blended more, and did not look like a ‘Nanny’? … IDK.

--
Am I too far behind now - do the family's posts, and the hiring of an attorney, make it clear that one of the family wrote it?

Malene Jessen said...

It appears to be actual hate disguised as a different kind of hate the subject doesn't feel.

ANALYSIS:


"Hello I am writing this as a concerned parent and friend!"

The subject is drawing attention to the parents of the daycare. “Concerned parent” comes before “friend”, which shows priority. The subject wants the recipient to understand that this is a friendly message, while drawing attention to the unpleasantness that will follow. The subject wants to stay on the good side of the recipient. This suggests the subject actually wants to achieve something from the recipient, which will be uncomfortable for the recipient to give.


"So most of us noticed you have a black girl working for the daycare. "

This could indicate that she is trying to hide in the crowd. But it could also simply be that she has spoken with other parents, who have noticed a black girl. She does not say, that “most of us” have a problem, but that most of the parents she has spoken to have noticed a black girl.


"Our problem is she’s too dark most of the kids is scared of her. "

The subject, and at least someone else have a problem, that some, but not all, of the kids are scared of her, due to her skin. This should be highlighted in blue. It is highly sensitive, why the kids are scared of her. The subject has a need to explain why there is a problem with the black girl.


"I am only telling you this because some of us are planning to pull our kids from the daycare she's an eye sore."

This is also highly sensitive. Not only does she have a need to explain why they have a problem with the black girl. She also has a need to explain why she needs to explain it. “only” suggests she is comparing this reason to something else. Another reason for telling it, as a friend.


Continues...

Malene Jessen said...

I see you’re trying to touch all of the nationalities but maybe hire a light skinned black she would blend more and not look like a “NANNY”.

Appearance is important to the subject. And so is control of the environment. The subject suggests that the leader of the daycare center hires employees based on appearance. “trying”, in the subjects perceived reality, the daycare leader is trying, but not succeeding in hiring based on nationalities. Someone from a light skinned nationality is OK, but very dark is scary.

This suggests, it is the nationality that is scary - not the skin colour. And that it is the subject, not the kids, that is scared - perhaps unconsciously so. But “NANNY” is not a scary look. So, why is it a problem that a woman working at a daycare center looks like a nanny? It appears the subject has several connotations linked to the nationality and skin colour of the employee.
(Perhaps she flirted with her husband?)


She’s not the first thing a child nor the parents want to see soon as they walk in the daycare.

She is telling us, what isn’t the first thing a child nor the parents want to see. This suggests, she actually is the first thing a child (distancing) wants to see. “the parents” include both parents. Usually it is only the father or mother who picks up the kids. Here, the subject first distances herself from “a child”, and then includes both of “the parents”. There is a portrait of an unusual unity, in this setting. She has a need to paint a picture of a unity between parents, and it has nothing to do with “a child”.


So the choice is yours!

The subject does not, yet, tell us what the choice is. To the subject there is a clear choice to be made, and it is not up to her. In reference to an earlier point (flirting husband?). Could it be, that the subject is aware of a choice needed to be made?

Continues...

Malene Jessen said...

Choose wisely remember WE THE PARENTS PAY YOUR MORTAGE.

The mortgage is on the subject’s mind as something needed to be remembered. And the wise choice is dependant upon it. It could be, that the subject is reminding herself of this fact. Her own choice could be between leaving her husband or being wise about it, so that “the parents” can pay the mortgage.

I hope you make her aware she's not wanted.

The subject hopes the black girls is aware of this. This is not about being fired. It is about being “wanted”.


I’m sending her a copy as well.

She wants to be sure, she knows she’s not wanted.


However if she needs a job McDonalds is always hiring her kind.

This is genuine spite. We must consider, that “kind” does not relate to skin colour. It could be, but it could also be the view that she is uneducated or “cheap”, e.g. for flirting with her husband.




So work your magic and make it disappear!!!

It refers to “our problem”. Meaning her problem, which is that someone has a choice to make. Someone has to make the black girl aware that she is not “wanted”. And that this will fix the problem.


P.S. Just trying “TO MAKE YOUR DAYCARE GREAT AGAIN”

Again spite. She is actually telling us, that she is someone who voted Hillary. This suggests skin colour is of little relevance to her.

Continues...

Malene Jessen said...

Conclusion:

Suburban housewife, social butterfly
White
Hillary voter

Motive: To make her own problem disappear. This is done by making the black woman aware that she is not "wanted". Because the subject can't kick out her husband, as there is a mortgage to pay.

It is not politically motivated. It is not even about race. It is about putting it upon someone else to solve her own marital problems.

Malene Jessen said...

Afterthoughts...

The subject mentions, as the first part of the problem, that the black girl is "noticed". The subject wants a less scary girl instead, someone who "blends in" more - as in, someone who is unnoticeable.

The initial "concern" and "friend" could easily be the message she herself has received, if another parent has made the subject aware of flirting or infidelity between her husband and the black girl. I am not suggesting they have had an affair, but this is apparent in the perceived reality of the subject.

In my conclusion I wrote that the subject was white. I don't have analysis to support this claim. It's a balance of probability.
Skin colour does not appear to be truly important to the subject. It is a veil to disguise a different problem. If skin colour is of no true concern for her, it would point to her being white.

Malene Jessen said...

Also...

A perceived affair will account for why she is "planning to pull our kids from the daycare she's an eye sore."
"Our kids" is a possessive pronoun. She is truthful in her planning to pull her kids from the daycare, because of how the black girl looks. But, if the day care can make the black girl aware that she is not "wanted", the subject will likely keep her kids there.

rob (original) said...

Female
Black
Left
what she wants: a payday

I agree with Cristina, only another black would reference light-skinned, dark-skinned.
Maybe she thinks she is about to be fired for another reason, like attendance, failure to do the job, what ever, so she introduces this to make it the reason she is fired, and ends up getting a payday out of it.

Nic said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Nic said...


I think Kit is right.

I missed your post altogether, Kit. What strikes me about what you posted:

I did not read all of the comments, so if this has already been mentioned, my apologies.

It appears that the letter was written by the 'too black' woman in question. In other words, fake hate. Again. Still. Always.


...is that it appears this way to you. But what if it wasn't? This is the sad reality of the world we've come to. There are real victims out there. But there is so much scamming, the sad reality is, in the end, the real victims have little to no advocacy.

Nic said...

Anonymous said...
Nic, I like what you're saying about the owner writing it. But wouldn't it be a lot of work for her to hire a black woman, only to get rid of her? Plus the letter indicates there may be a variety of people of color working there.

<<<<

Yes. That is why I asked if there was a central HR division (who does the hiring on behalf of the manager).

The letter begins in the past tense. The word "for" (geographic placement) is also used. i.e., I work at (or for) XYZ. My boss bought computers for the office. To me it means that the letter was written with the end in mind (success)/employee not with the company any longer.

Nic said...

Hey Jude wrote:
"...gain, we are currently trying to deal with the situation internally due to our employee requesting that her privacy is respected and as well as the privacy and safety of the children and families at the center"

________

Holy moly. Here is a walking contradiction if I ever saw one. Both the son and mother (operator?) publicly broadcast the hate letter and then the son says "they" are "currently trying to deal with the situation internally due to our employee requesting that her privacy is respected".

Emphasis mine.

This case is making me feel bi-polar. I have no idea what to think anymore.

"the situation"
minimization of the century considering they publicly broadcasted their employee's confidential labor problem.

Considering how this case is evolving and what we're learning, I can ASSume that this is not a state-run/subsidized daycare.

It doesn't appear that the targeted employee has intentions of leaving? They're "trying to deal" with the situation. How? By trying to (suck it up and) deal with it? Creating a firestorm that will make her quit?

Wow.

Nic said...

It is nice to see that some/majority of people get the message I am relaying here. It is sad how some people can be so closed and fickle minded to believe that a person cannot support certain aspects of a human being when given a 50/50 choice, while also having their own morals and beliefs. Again, we are currently trying to deal with the situation internally due to our employee requesting that her privacy is respected and as well as the privacy and safety of the children and families at the center. I will try to keep everyone updated as time goes on and only by the discretion of our employee. Thank you again to those of you with an open-mind and caring heart.

So I'm going to rant, today my mother received an anonymous piece of mail to our daycare center in reference to one of our African American employees (can read it pictured below.) For one, this woman is one of the most quiet & nice people you could meet & loves her job, however, again in this world people feel they have the right to act like children & do not have the balls to step forward as an adult. Its pathetic & honestly I feel sorry that their children having to grow with such a shitty person as a parent. This shit has gone way too far in America and it needs to stop, everyone choses to blame Trump, however, you cant, people make their own decisions. I do not stand for racism, its disgusting, especially to such kind hearted people. My mother & father built their company around care for all people & children no matter their race or ability/disabilities to grow equal & together. Let this be known, if/when we find out who you are, be ready for the consequences that follow. You are a representation of what we all hate about America. Congratulations. #NoRacism #StandTogether

__________
some
50/50
choice
keep
rant
this world
balls

two very sensitive verbs:
keep
rant

rant is beside the hate letter, followed by the identification of which "one" of the African American employees working for the daycare, which is subsequently followed by behaviour (child like)

today my mother received an anonymous piece of mail to our daycare centre
Where he begins (by ranting (sensitive)) is important. He date stamps the event, not necessarily "today", but by broadcasting the letter on social media. Until then, it was a "private" matter, and note the letter was not dated or properly addressed.

today my mother received an anonymous piece of mail to our daycare centre
versus my mother received a piece of mail from an anonymous source
anonymous is before "piece of mail", making anonymous the priority. Anonymous does not describe the source. The source is not mentioned. What is not identified is sensitive. Distancing.

a person cannot support certain aspects of a human being when given a 50/50 choice,
what is stated in the negative is sensitive (supporting certain aspects of a human being)

choices
Choices appear to be a running theme between the letter and the broadcast. What are the choices? They are 50/50. One or the other. But he doesn't say what the choice is. Accept or reject? Stay or go?

this world
The son describes more than one world when he says, "this" world

balls
He define adults having "balls". Some of us have ovaries. Leakage?

Trudy said...

Hey Hey J., The 15 minutes would be the daycare owner's daughter's social status as a SJW. She is fighting for goodness against evil (in the form of racism) and expects to be lauded for it. A commenter, up thread, mentioned the likelihood of a Go-Fund Me account being set up. Cynical, yes, but I agree. I think her secondary motive was financial.
-----------
A mic drop is the gesture of intentionally dropping one's microphone at the end of a performance or speech to signal triumph. Figuratively, it is an expression of triumph for a successful event and indicates a boastful attitude toward one's own performance.

The daughter used that expression. Perhaps, believing that the means justifies the ends (that writing a fake hate letter is a perfectly justifiable way of raising awareness about racial discrimination - she is proud of her performance.)


Anonymous said...

"today my mother received an anonymous piece of mail TO our day care centre."

To? You don't receive something TO. You send it TO. You receive it AT.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous said...
"today my mother received an anonymous piece of mail TO our day care centre."

To? You don't receive something TO. You send it TO. You receive it AT.


This is a good point. I would need to know if the subject never goes to the daycare.

Peter

Hey Jude said...

Ah, Thanks Trudy - I see what you mean now.

Nic, it is so contradictory - for all their claimed care for the employee, they published the letter, which act shows no real consideration or respect. It was a horrible thing to do, and shows publicising the letter was more important to them than the employee. It did not need publicising - if they found it an anonymous threatening hate letter, it is surprising if they did not take it to the police rather than post it online. I wonder how they are expecting to be able to deal with it 'internally' if they don't know who the author is.

Marlene - Control of the environment - yes, it seems obvious, but only because you've pointed it out. I will read it again to try to understand how you are getting to an affair - it's an interesting theory, but I don't see it so far. I wondered if there was any significance in the letter describing the employee as 'girl' and the family - not sure if all - as a 'woman' - I wonder if she is perhaps a more mature person than the letter writer wants people to believe, and why they might choose 'girl' if she is more of an age to be referred to as a 'woman'. That's so variable though, it might not mean anything.

I think 'the parents' could be all the parents in general rather than 'both parents' of 'a child'.

Would the owner be likely to write 'Make your daycare great again' - it is to say it is not great, which after years of building up the business, and new premises, is an unlikely thing for her to want or be able to write, much less post online - as the daycare is her proud achievement, with new premises and equipment, it probably is greater than previously.

Interesting you find spite, others jealousy - those would be present if the problem was an affair, yet could also be due to other reasons. Someone said class envy.



Hey Jude said...

I think it is more usual for people to just say someone received a letter today, rather than include where they received it.

Hey Jude said...

Maybe not, as it related to work - received at workplace.

Christina-Marie Wright said...

Now that I’ve had time to think about it/sleep on it...

I have a question.

I am super-sure the writer meant “mammy” instead of “nanny,” even though I can’t say it for the writer.

But... would a black woman make that mistake? Would the image of a “mammy” be popular in black culture and history? Something so well-known that a black woman wouldn’t be likely to make that mistake?

Christina-Marie Wright said...

“Popular” isn’t the right word... I think I wanted to say something closer to “notorious.”

Nic said...

Nanny is a babysitter whose employer is the parent/home owner. A nanny's scope of work is defined by the home owner. A nanny also cooks and cleans. You hire a nanny to work in your home and to ensure your kids don't break their neck or burn the house down. Contrary to what you think you are paying a nanny to do, a nanny does not get paid to "care" about your kids or to educate your kids (help them with homework/projects). A nanny is not government regulated (educated in child development/education,) and does not require post-secondary eduction because their child "care" duties centre around [just] supervising kids and domestics (cleaning). A nanny is delegated to.

A daycare provider/establishment sets the parameters of their scope of work from the schedule of developmental activities to nutrition, to the rules of drop-off/pick-up time (and late fees). The daycare is in the driver's seat right down to when they say they are closed and for how long (for vacation).

girl is junior


Nic said...

I know my definition of nanny is brutal. I happen to know a few professional families who hired nannies up until their kids were "allowed" to be home alone. I also know that the parents believed their choice was "superior" to [just] daycare until 5 or 6pm. Yet, each one of them are entitled and lack empathy. These nannies do not get paid to "love" their charges.

I believe the author of the letter was classifying his target as "less than" the owners. She is an employee. A girl (junior).

Hey Jude said...

Nic, your definition of 'nanny' is nearer my definition of a couldn’t care less au pair, or possibly a bad babysitter. :)
—-

Here is my UK understanding of ‘Nanny’, and of others - :

A proper 'nanny' is trained in childcare and has relevant qualifications - a Norland Nanny, for instance, is not only a Nanny, but also considered a status symbol - they have particular ways of doing things, and wear a distinctive traditional uniform. (I have never seen a Norland nanny.)


I learned, from the Casey Anthony case, that in the US a 'nanny' can be the equivalent of a 'babysitter.' Here, a babysitter, who called herself a nanny, or a mother who called a babysitter a nanny, would be misleading people, or at least considered to be affected and putting on airs, as (real) nannies are expected to be qualified in childcare, they usually live in, and they are properly paid, while a babysitter is more usually a relative or friend doing a favour, or a teenager babysitting for pocket money. If Zanny the Nanny had existed, she would, to my understanding, have been a babysitter, as she was, according to Casey, looking after Caley for free, alongside her own child. I know she was not real, but she was accepted as real, and as a ‘Nanny’ by those who knew Casey.


People who use their own homes as daycare venues are called 'childminders' or more properly 'registered childminders' - they need to meet government regulations with regard to safety and numbers.


‘Daycare’ here also has a different meaning. ‘Daycare centres’ in the U.K. are variously for the elderly, the severely disabled, and for people with learning difficulties.


Babysitters are occasional child care, more often friends or relatives, or older teenagers for pocket money, who sit with your kids, usually of an evening, or more usually without them - it’s considered polite to have young children asleep, particularly babies, before the sitter arrives, and not to be out much past eleven. I think babysitter has the same meaning as in the US.


In nurseries, which most children attend from age three in the state system, and often earlier if private, there are teachers, assistants, and nursery nurses. Nursery is considered part of the education system rather than only childcare. (Children start infant school at age four - these days the first year is mostly play based learning.)

Daycare I think is the equivalent of nursery school, or another name for nursery school.

Hey Jude said...

As here there is little room for confusion as to what a person who cares for children is called, I find what seems to be the casual use of 'nanny' in the US to be somewhat confusing. It could be I have a wrong impression and that the same terms are used, or also used, but that some people find them interchangeable. I think not, as someone posted here on a different discussion that they had never heard the term ‘childminder’ - maybe it is only a British category of childcare.

The poster who said that to be a Nanny would be a step-up from a daycare assistant, must, I think, have the thought of a British Nanny, or traditional Nanny, if that variety are also part of American upper class, or wealthy, culture. I think here, to be a nanny in a good household would be seen as a step up from being a nursery assistant, at least by those who liked the prospect of sharing in the privileged lifestyles of the families who hired them. If someone wanted to be a nursery assistant and chose to work with children in a poor area, it would be seen as an equally good occupation, and some would think better, according to their own perspective.

Back to the letter and the search for clarity: I would like to know if ‘Nanny’ is a real term used of a daycare centre worker. I think the UK equivalent would be nursery assistant in a nursery school. If not, then that would rule out that the girl looked like a daycare worker, and there was a distinctive look to that, which one poster associated to a uniform, and the problem, the ‘it’ being a uniform. If so, it would likely be a modern tunic top type. If the it was a uniform, and it was a dark colour, it might be unflattering to a darker skinned person. It would seem a strange way to go about lodging a complaint about a new uniform, though. Might be a new uniform to go with a new daycare centre.

---

In the Blackburn case, Megs is called the ‘nanny’, too. yet she appears, to my understanding, to have been a babysitter. Amanda and Ashley did ‘nannying’ also - how, or where, I do not know.

Hey Jude said...

If 'Nanny' can be ruked out as a term for a daycare worker, the. I think I would go with the author having intended 'mama', also - but there is the problem of that not being what she said. :-/

Malene Jessen said...

I am in a hurry so this is a short reply.
There are many reasons I think this points to the fear of an affair. I'll return later with more...

She says "NANNY" in capital letters. This is personal. A nanny is a young (the term "girl" supports this as opposed to the stereotype mammy, who is old) girl who is in the house doing the work, a suburban housewife is supposed to do.

If she has the image in her mind, in todays society, she must have imagined this girl inside her own home.

When she writes about taking kids out of the daycare it's "our kids", she takes ownership. But when talking about what *is not* the first thing someone wants to see, it's "a child".
This is a change in language. The greatest distance from her kid is when she is holding in her mind the image of her kid wanting to see this girl as the first thing. And "the parents" is mentioned in relation to this as well.
Meaning, perhaps one of the parents do look forward to seing her.

It is the image of a nanny that causes fear to be the tone of the letter. I believe it is genuine.

If this was written by someone who isn't a parent, we probably wouldn't see ownership in a direct lie about planning to take "our kids out."

If this was the woman herself, "nanny" would be an unlikely description.

The reference to other parents seem genuine. I don't see any sensitivity in her writing when refering to them specifically.

Her fear is that this girl has been noticed. She wants some other dark woman who is less noticable. And she wants the black girl to feel she is not wanted. Meaning, in the reality of the subject, the black girl is wanted right now by some. Of all the words she could choose, this is what she hopes will magically fix the problem and make her actual fear go away.

Hey Jude said...

Ah, re-reading Nic's post - daycare is for older children, too.

Hey Jude said...

Marlene - I get that now, thanks for the further explanation - I think it does sound plausible.

Hey Jude said...

^^ Malene, rather

Malene Jessen said...

"NANNY" is almost screamed out, suggesting anger/rage. This image of the girl in the subject's home, taking care of kids and daily chors angers her.

After reading your reply again, it occured to me you might see what I wrote to suggest I think it's the owner of the daycare? I don't. I think it's the mother of at least two kids, who go there. One of the kids fancies the black girl.

She is likely a working mother. The father picks up the kids some of the time. She has little education. Probably white. She is toying with skin colour at nationalities as if they are covenient props in the story she wants to tell. She is unaware of the finer points of racial discrimination. Her attempt to pin it in race is from the point of dark skin = fear. This is common for the elder generations, people who have lived protected lives.

Obviously I could be wrong. 200 comments speak to the contrary. But if this is a parent, who feels powerless towards a perceived threat against her mariage... to the degree of sending an anonymous letter to the daycare center, and planning to take her kids out. (Can she still work if so? Can they pay their mortgage?) Combined with her need to control the environment and a naive world view.
There is reason to be concerned for the black girl who is the target of her anger.

Malene Jessen said...

She wrote it in capital letters. People usually mean exactly what they say. Here she is screaming it. I can see how MAMMY would fit one puzzle better. But it's like cutting that last piece of a puzzle into a different shape, if it doesn't fit, with the idea that the piece was wrong. It is likely the gathering of the pieces or the image that was wrong. I think.

That's what's bothering me with the conclusion that this should be politically motivated or jealousy from coworkers. Not all the pieces fit, unless we go to great lengths to make them do so. I am aware that threats involving race are often fake, with a political agenda. But it doesn't fit easily. Not unless we cut the unfitting pieces into something far removed from simple principles.

Malene said...

Hey Hey Jude :-)

Happens all the time! :-D
Thanks for the feedback!

Hey Jude said...

Yes, she did not say 'Mammy' so we can't say it for her, or assume she meant to say it, And, yes, I thought you meant the owner.

Anonymous said...

Although this letter isn't actually hate, it is harassment.It is intended to drive business away from the daycare. Intended to make children feel unsafe and insecure; cause economic loss for more than one dark employee.

The author already knows the daycare owner will not make the really dark black girl aware she isn't wanted,SO it sends a copy to her as well(?)
The author knows of the MORTAGE.
The author knows of other employees and their nationalities.

If the black woman wrote the letter, maybe she went to school with the daycare owner's children and writes according to how she learned.

Or,maybe the writer is a young male that thinks it runs the show and entertains fantasies with other employees and can't see himself doing the same with a negro of a darker skin tone. Maybe one with light skin would work better.

Malene Jessen said...

Hey Jude,
Oh, the comment on Nanny/mammy was meant to Christina-Marie, but somehow Blogger placed my comment at the end of the comments instead. It wasn't meant in relation to what you wrote. :-)

LuciaD said...

Peter, will you give us your analysis of the letter?

Nic said...

Hey Jude said:
Nic, it is so contradictory - for all their claimed care for the employee, they published the letter, which act shows no real consideration or respect. It was a horrible thing to do, and shows publicising the letter was more important to them than the employee. It did not need publicising - if they found it an anonymous threatening hate letter, it is surprising if they did not take it to the police rather than post it online. I wonder how they are expecting to be able to deal with it 'internally' if they don't know who the author is.


Yes. Considering both posted the letter it at the same time, sounds like a team effort, doesn't it.

Joanna McFarlin said...

I’m sending her a copy as well. However if she needs a job Mcdonalds is always hiring her kind.

2. “a copy” doesn’t say a copy of what


Yes, like the recipient knows what they're talking about/talking on the same level.

Nanny - I think we demonstrated personal subjective dictionary. :0) It would be insightful if we could ask the author what they meant by "nanny". :0)

Bobcat noted "So" at the beginning of the rant. Much like the "piece of mail" began.

Anonymous said...

This is the best letter yet. It's fun, entertaining, and not too hurtful (unless you are the target).

I sense a gossiper like a stich-n-beotch coffee-klatch operation from the '50/'60s.(personal experience has taught me that men are worse than women at gossip. Even a black woman would agree to that.)

Young people appear to be worse now than they were then, though.

Peter, please post your analysis.

Nic said...

Hey Jude said...
Ah, re-reading Nic's post - daycare is for older children, too.


Yes, older kids typically go to after school daycare until around 11 years of age. Then they can take their "at home alone" course and they can stay home by themselves until their parents arrive home.

There is a cottage industry for everything. :p

Hey Jude said...

Here, children of working parents either stay in after school clubs, where they are available, or go to a childminder until their parents can collect them. Long days for those who go to the school breakfast clubs, too - can be 8 till 6 or later, poor dabs.

LuciaD said...

I do believe in "look for horses, not zebras". So the most likely scenario is probably the true one., To me that is the author is probably the targeted black employee.

Anonymous said...

If the author is the black lady, she must feel awfully shunned from the other women working there. She must be young and thought she liked working with children and now she's changed her mind.

It is something a young person would write.

Tashi said...

I think the author is the son based on the linguistic similarities to his facebook post. Also, awkward, "piece of mail" instead of letter.
The other thing, I'm not sure if anyone touched on this, he reveals something I found notable...it struck me as I was reading it, he celebrates the worker's attributes--in order of importance-- quiet. Why is it important to him that she is quiet? She doesn't draw attention to herself? She should be seen and not heard? She is seen and not heard here, according to him. The letter writer doesn't even want her to be seen. The fixation on the senses in both letters strikes me as being covert racism.
The so's, waxing between slang and articulation, this was written quickly, by a male, by the son in my opinion, passive aggressive and probably is a gripe with his parents.

Tashi said...

Let me qualify that by saying the piece of mail features overt racism but the son's "response" with a focus on the sense-experience of the employee that matches the sense-experience of the original writer and serves as a defense to match the "sin" of the employee seems to me to be a sign of covert racism on the son's part and the match is part of the reason I think he is the writer.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

A bit easier for readers:


1. Genuine Racist Letter

2. Fake Hate


Choose.

Peter

LuciaD said...

Fake hate

General P. Malaise said...

fake hate

Malene Jessen said...

1) Genuine fear/anger intentionally veiled by racism.

Malene Jessen said...

Peter, why only these two options?

From the onset of this statement we've had to make this choice between real racism or fake hate (as is usually the case). That narrows down the focus of the analysts, who will look for clues to either of them. But it also prohibits the analyst from doing an unbiased analysis.

I can't choose between the two options. I want to say both and neither. I believe there could be a real threat to the target of the letter. It could be influenced by racism, but that is not the motive of the subject. It is "fake hate" in relation to making it appear to be about race. But the fear and anger towards the target is real. It's just not about race.

I assume you've already made your analysis of the statement and concluded it is either of the two options. And my own analysis therefore must be wrong. I'm arrogant by nature - I don't think my analysis is wrong, which makes the choice between the two both frustrating and disappointing.

General P. Malaise said...

Malene Jessen said...

it is not usually all or none.

there are elements of racism/hate and fakery. still the only the two options as far as the analysis is concerned are, it is really about racism or someone wants to use racism/hate for another agenda hence fake racism/hate.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Anonymous Malene Jessen said...
Peter, why only these two options?

From the onset of this statement we've had to make this choice between real racism or fake hate (as is usually the case). That narrows down the focus of the analysts, who will look for clues to either of them. But it also prohibits the analyst from doing an unbiased analysis.

I can't choose between the two options. I want to say both and neither. I believe there could be a real threat to the target of the letter. It could be influenced by racism, but that is not the motive of the subject. It is "fake hate" in relation to making it appear to be about race. But the fear and anger towards the target is real. It's just not about race.

I assume you've already made your analysis of the statement and concluded it is either of the two options. And my own analysis therefore must be wrong. I'm arrogant by nature - I don't think my analysis is wrong, which makes the choice between the two both frustrating and disappointing.

October 12, 2017 at 2:23 PM Delete
Blogger General P. Malaise said...
Malene Jessen said...

it is not usually all or none.

there are elements of racism/hate and fakery. still the only the two options as far as the analysis is concerned are, it is really about racism or someone wants to use racism/hate for another agenda hence fake racism/hate.

October 12, 2017 at 2:43 PM Delete
Blogger Peter Hyatt said...
Malene Jessen said...
Peter, why only these two options?

From the onset of this statement we've had to make this choice between real racism or fake hate (as is usually the case). That narrows down the focus of the analysts, who will look for clues to either of them. But it also prohibits the analyst from doing an unbiased analysis.


This is inaccurate.

When we look at any statement, our presuppositional thinking is to question if something is true or it is not true.

If this prohibits the analyst from unbiased analysis, there is no such thing as Statement Analysis.

This is a basic analytical question that is answered by any thinking person, trained or untrained, prompted or unprompted.

This is where we begin our work: The analytical question.

The question is if this is a genuine letter from a parent wanting the removal of a worker. This is what police investigate as a "hate crime."

They need to know: did a parent of a concerned child write this, or...

not.

That is the exercise posted here.

The author's own self is revealed in the letter is something different. One cannot run unless one learns to walk first. Walking is learning if a concerned parent with a child in attendance wrote this letter.

This disposition is critical before moving to advanced analysis, including content and the profile.

Regarding Content in general...

Next, we find that in a deceptive statement, 90% of the information right up to 100% reliable is often the norm.


As to arrogance, humility is a key to learning. It assumes that knowledge not possessed is to be gained. Those who, from around the country here and in Western Europe, who are the most accurate and effective analysts known, do not dig their heels in on any opinion. They do not hold a high opinion of their opinion, but continually question, so they can learn. I have an article on "digging in one;'s heels" coming soon.

Team analysis is hindered by arrogance as arrogance affirms self over truth. Formal training can help but if it is a powerful personality trait, eventually it will reveal itself in error, with reluctance or resistance to correction.

The inspiration for the upcoming article on "digging one's heels in" comes from an analyst who has written here. She runs at 100% accuracy and sets an example of what it means to receive correction in wisdom, via her response.



Peter

Malene Jessen said...

Thank you for elaborating, Peter.
"When we look at any statement, our presuppositional thinking is to question if something is true or it is not true. "

Yes. Which is why I don't understand the choice between "genuine racism" and "Fake hate". These are some of the conclusions we might reach, but not necessarily. The threat can be "not true", but still be a genuine threat.
With these two options, "not true" turns into the conclusion of "fake hate", which leads to "not a threat".

General P. Malaise,
" it is really about racism or someone wants to use racism/hate for another agenda hence fake racism/hate."

But isn't the point to figure out, what the threat level is?
It seems that the conclusion "fake hate" has become important in and of itself. I don't understand the value of it. Figuring out the actual agenda is of value. And in order to do that, I understand that we must consider "fake hate". But is it of value as a conclusion? I'm asking - not rhetorically.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

It is of value to the arresting officer.

Malene Jessen said...

Peter,
My respons above was to your first reply.
I'm aware that my arrogance is something to work on. You've mentioned the importance of humility before. I will take the corrections and errors as they show themselves...

General P. Malaise said...

Malene Jessen said...
Thank you for elaborating, Peter.
"When we look at any statement, our presuppositional thinking is to question if something is true or it is not true. "

we all bring our own bias to the analysis. we also need to recognize it and hopefully put it aside and look only to answer the specific question.

what is threatened in the letter? nothing is explicitly threatened. nowhere does the letter say we will pull our children out if she isn't fired. the linkage is in the reader's mind because the letter does not state it. there is no threat stated. racism is but it is tempered as though the writer isn't racist against blacks but wishes to appear so.

Malene Jessen said...

General P,

It depends on the agenda. If the fake hate covers real hate of a different kind.

This is taken out of context from my analysis, but:

" if this is a parent, who feels powerless towards a perceived threat against her mariage... to the degree of sending an anonymous letter to the daycare center, and planning to take her kids out. (Can she still work if so? Can they pay their mortgage?) Combined with her need to control the environment and a naive world view.
There is reason to be concerned for the black girl who is the target of her anger."

Malene Jessen said...

I do see a threat in this letter, even though it can be said to be "fake hate".

Malene Jessen said...

The subject does not make explicit threats. I'm aware of that.
It is the lengths she will go to in order to control her environment. The boundaries she has already crossed in the hope of a magical resolution. And in the way she attempts to cover it up.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Malene Jessen said...
General P,

It depends on the agenda. If the fake hate covers real hate of a different kind.

This is taken out of context from my analysis, but:

" if this is a parent, who feels powerless towards a perceived threat against her mariage... to the degree of sending an anonymous letter to the daycare center, and planning to take her kids out. (Can she still work if so? Can they pay their mortgage?) Combined with her need to control the environment and a naive world view.
There is reason to be concerned for the black girl who is the target of her anger."

so what is the threat than?
I have no problem that you consider the possible options (threat to marriage) but I don't see sufficient linguistic backup. The language would be less passive if that were the case and possibly not anonymous. IMO

Malene Jessen said...

The language is passive, but the letter is an action.
If this is a woman who wants to stop her husband from cheating on her, her first step would be to confront her husband, right?
But instead she contacts the workplace of the girl she sees as a threat, demanding their involvement, using the kids (that they are afraid of her) as a means to an end. Racism is a convenient tool for her. Not as a political agenda, but as something which in her mind makes perfect sense.

That is, presumably, her first action. What will her second action be?

Infidelity, or the thought of it alone, has been the cause of many homicides, with or without warning signs.

General P. Malaise said...

Anonymous Malene Jessen said...
The language is passive, but the letter is an action.

my first rule is I could be wrong ...about most everything.

I don't see the language of the letter going where you are saying.

Malene Jessen said...

Of course not, the above is an afterthought to my analysis. I'll happily repost the analysis. But it's somewhere up there in the comments.

Malene Jessen said...

Oh, you mean in terms of further action towards the target?
My analysis can't change your view on that.

sonjay said...

Fake hate.

I see no real malice towards black people in the language, only that the kids are scared of the very dark-skinned woman. The note doesn't even actually *say* that kids are scared of her *because* of her dark skin -- so we can't say it for the author.

Also, there's concern that the dark-skinned woman needs a job, so there's a suggestion of where she can get a job. True hate wouldn't be concerned about the dark-skinned woman being jobless.

Natasha said...

She wants her problem to disappear. The problemis the overly dark skinned worker, presumably the author. Pay me to go away, disappear. I am a problem to you. I will be a problem to you. Give me what I want. I feel/know I'm different and want to be given a good reason to go.

Lars Bak said...

Peter Hyat said:

“The question is if this is a genuine letter from a parent wanting the removal of a worker. This is what police investigate as a "hate crime."

They need to know: did a parent of a concerned child write this, or... not.”

Thank you for this clarification Peter. Whenever your start with this list:

1. The writer's background
2. The writer's experiences in life
3. The writer's motive or purpose in writing
4. Personality traits of the writer

- my brain stalls. It’s too much and too difficult in one big mess. So here is what I would answer to the sole question “did a parent of a concerned child write this”. If the answer turns out to be no, maybe a candidate for the true writer may have come out him-/herself. I will only deal with the parts, that I find speaks to the identity, not “personality”. For convenience, I’ll say “her, she” about the writer:

“I am writing this…” is very strong. It indicates that there is only one writer; I’ll believe that, until spoken out of it.

“So most of us noticed you have a black girl working for the daycare.”

I don’t know what to do with a sentence starting with “So…”. I read it as “Well, let’s get started” – maybe there is some reluctance to it? Some preliminary thoughts about how to start.

“…most of us…”; here, she drops her commitment and claims to speak on behalf of most of the parents. I think she’s “hiding in the crowd”; unless the parents had had a meeting about it, it would be difficult for her to know how many parents are backing her up (she goes on to claim they have a common stategy).

“…noticed you have a black girl working for the daycare.”
If I remember it right, there is this peculiar (and to me somehow counter intuitive) thing about “having noticed something”, that it indicates “have been looking for”. If I’ve got that right, it can only be by the writer – she can’t claim, that all the parents have. But since the daycare apparently is full of colored employees, the thing she has been looking for might be a motive/pretext to write the letter. Can we call that leakage?

“I’m only telling you this…”; the emphasis on the unnecessary “only”, suggests that she has other reasons in mind.

“Nanny”; I think a concerned parent would just write “nanny”, because the parent would think, that that’s what she looks like. The capitals suggests outrage – that it is personal. It should be looked in to, whether somebody has told “the target”, that she looks like a nanny; this could be the reason for the letter.

“…a child nor the parents want to se soon as they walk in the daycare” We would expect a “we” here: “we nor our children”, “neither our children nor we” or something like that.

We would expect “…walk into the daycare” – is the writer already inside? Leakage again?

It doesn’t sound like a personal experience of walking into the daycare with a child. On the contrary, is sounds like the experience of somebody seeing a parent walking in with a child. And changing “kids” when speaking of “all the kids” in (relation to) the daycare, to child when with parents (or simply as a singled out child) has to me a sent of “professional” daycare lingo to it.

Conclusion:

The letter is likely written by someone “internal” to the daycare

Given the personal attitude towards “NANNY” it might well be by “the targeted” woman.

This already gives us the exsta bonus: The threat is not real.

Lars Bak said...

…and there’s more:

“…she’s too dark” is a very “thin” reason to give. I understand from the comments, that different skin tones is most likely a “black” issue, so it could indicate, that she is colored and has been right out searching for a reason to give.

“…if she needs a job McDonalds is always hiring her kind”; we would expect some animosity from parents saying “either get rid of her or we pull our kids out” and not concerns about “the target’s” job opportunities. Deliberations about finding another job are very personal; the writer might have thought of finding another job or writes it simply to put in “her kind” as part of the mask.

Nic said...

Peter said:
did a parent of a concerned child write this, or...

not.


Not. This "piece of mail" was written by someone on the inside.

I found it funny (peculiar, not ha, ha,) that both the operator/owner and son posted the letter but then the operator/owner made her FB account private and it was the son who took on the media "persona". I wonder if it was because she was fielding all the calls against publicly 'flogging' (my word) her employee.

He addresses
1) the employee's request for privacy (she requested it and the operator and son complied)
2) privacy and safety of the children
3) the families

So initially it was "a" parent who wrote and initiated this firestorm. But the families' privacy and safety are latent.

Based on what the operator/son says versus their behaviour, privacy is sensitive yet not respected.

Bullies m.o. is to make a workplace so toxic, the victim quits or finds another job.

This is a genuine hate.

Unknown said...

Yes. An adult child. Not one at the daycare. The writer separated themselves from the parents at the daycare by pronoun "they" in referring to the parents walking in the doorway. "She's not the first thing a child nor the parents want to see soon as they walk in the doorway." Not "we"

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Also, media reported that two copies were received; one for the Daycare and one for the employee of whom the letter was written about.

This may be a letter to bring to team analysis.

The author does identify self.

The talent of the analysts comes into focus when they work with each other. The "iron sharpening iron" is seen in the questions they ask, continually, about each word.

"Who would use this word?
Why is this word used?
What other word could have been used to communicate the same thing?
How else could this have been stated?
What is the order here?

and on and on...

as they ask this in a team setting, working together, as they work through the basic Statement Analysis (including commitment, threat level, motive),

it comes together nicely.

Peter

Statement Analysis Blog said...

A comical but true question that analysts have routinely made:

"Why can't I do this same level of work when I am alone?"

The accuracy comes!


Anonymous said...

So some insider at the daycare wrote this letter to create a hostile work environment for the black employee, assuming she will quit? I can see that being the motive. Seems to me more likely another employee is the writer, than an owner.

Natasha said...

Peter, please tell us! It appears no one is right yet.
Btw, I am in graduate school and just took a big paycut to get out of a toxic situation, so I can't afford one of your classes yet. Do you have a training manual you sell that is (much) cheaper? I am studying counseling and I don't know yet if I'd ever need this on the job. But I am fascinated by human nature and I want to learn the process. Starting out slow is perfect for me time wise right now. Please advise. Hopefully one day I will be able to take the class, whether I get to formally use it or not. (The class is $750, isn't it?) Thank you!

Nic said...

I am heartened by the level of activity on this post. This matters.

Lars Bak said...

Could it be from a colleague to the targeted woman who has been called "looking like a nanny" by her?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

For those interested, Hillary has provided some fascinating quotes; even if the context is broken by the journalist. If you wish to go beyond deception detection, here is a good sample to work from:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/10/13/hillary-clinton-calls-trump-sexual-assaulter-in-bbc-interview-but-says-bills-behavior-in-past.html



Also, regarding the final analysis of this letter, I have several teams who meet later this month and may seek If one wishes to analyze for the blog. These are made up of professionals, seasoned vets, as well as new comers, who come together as a team for a common goal.

Otherwise, I will post my own analysis when I get to it.

Peter

Statement Analysis Blog said...

For those still working on it:

Did you come to a conclusion, yet, whether the letter is "fake hate"; that is, not a genuine racist letter intended to bring about the consequence of an employee being removed or...

if it is actual: a concerned parent wrote it who has worked or spoken to others, and wants the dark-skinned employee removed?

By now, there is enough information posted that should lead you to one or the other. This is the initial goal that a generated report uses. The investigator needs to know: is this genuine, or is is a hoax?

Once known, we then move into content analysis and the four elements of identifying the author, including the motive.

Peter

Trudy said...

Yes, it's fake and yes, it matter. One of the things that angers me the most about these fake hate crimes is the self righteous, holier -than-thou, response of those who are caught red handed.

They say that the fake hate crime is a legitimate tool and/or strategy to use for raising awareness of racism/sexism. They are unapologetic and seem to think they have performed a community service. Remember recently, Beth Fukumoto's tweety response to allegations of faking the racist letter sent to her office?

"Lots of people spent too much time disputing the letter's authenticity and too little time disputing the racist statements it contained."


These bed wetting snowflakes need to understand that they are committing a crime. And they need to be punished for committing a crime. The psychosocial drama has to stop. It is doing our heads in.

Here is a data base of hate crime hoaxes in the UK and a PDF of a book about the phenomena - cry wolf.

http://fakehatecrimes.org

Trudy said...

Edit: n USA. Crying Wolf.

Lucia D said...

My instinct still says it is fake hate. I don't believe a real racist would feel a light skinned black employee would be any more acceptable than a dark skinned black employee.

Ruby said...

It's fake hate in that it's not genuinely from a parent or a friend.

The aim is to cause trouble & embarrassment for the daycare owner. 'Make it disappear' is a taunt, referring to the trouble that this letter brings.

Whoever the author is
- hates the owner for being a Trump supporter (parodying Trumpisms - 'we the parents', 'make your daycare great again').
- reads like a melodramatic brat, not much more than a kid, probably a girl, into make-up, far left of centre, white
- might be having a hard time trying to reconcile how a Trump supporter can hire a black person and is venting about the perceived hypocrisy. In her mind 'we the people/parents' are racists in the way she portrays racist thinking in the letter, which is a parody, not real. To her, Trump's people = parents = racists. “You voted for Trump?! Yeah, well this is what Trump's people think about your black worker...” so her little mind works.
- The daycare owner's teen daughter?

The letter is a revenge attack for supporting Trump.

I'm just guessing.

Hey Jude said...

I think it is fake hate, but I don't know what the motive is. It might be genuine hate of the black girl, or self-hate, if she wrote it, but I think it is not motivated by racism, as a different black person would be acceptable to the author. Logically, it seems the author does not want the girl fired, and does not suggest she is doing anything to make the children scared, which would be an actual reason for wanting her removed - the objection is to her colour, and to how she looks - 'like a nanny'.


Anonymous said...

Fake hate

Written by the subject

The motive is to show "evidence" of racism she feels from parents and wants sympathy for. She feels unwanted and wants her co-workers, boss, and maybe other parents to sympathize, "oh, no, you are wanted here. We're not going to fire you!"

I'm trying to remember: do writers of fake hate ever include the name of "their target" (their own name)? If it's real, it seems silly the name of the black daycare worker isn't included.

I remember the anonymous letter to the mixed couple who owned the sweet ice company named "David", the recipient. This was the one letter I thought was real. All the other I recall, no name included.

Trudy said...

I disagree with you Anon. The letter to David from Sweet Ice was a classic hate mail hoax.

"Less than two months after opening their west Homewood business, they received a letter, which stated, "It is hard to imagine a Birmingham boy leaving and bringing back a black wife. You need to move to California where that is SOP."

Of course he went straight to Facebook with the letter, and was overwhelmed by the outpouring of support for him, his wife and his business.
Imagine that.

Anonymous said...

Nope, it was too personal. If it were written intending to boost business, it would have referred to the business, not his personal choices. In that, it's very different from all the fake hate letters we've seen.

The choice to share it after receiving it is not proof he wrote it. I can see from your attitude about him you really want it to have been him, though.

Trudy said...

My attitude? I couldn't care less if he wrote it or not. The fact is he that did write it himself and it is a fake hate letter. I'm pretty sure that Peter analysed it, too, and came to the same conclusion. David wrote the letter.

Anonymous said...

Peter did not. He presented the letter, made some analysis without conclusion and asked us to state our conclusions and said his was forthcoming, but he never posted it.

There was sample of David's speech and writing. I'm trained to determine the educational level of text. The person who wrote the letter is much less educated and doesn't read (or write) at the same educational level as David. The anonymous letter shows no signs of trying to mask the educational level of the writer. David didn't write it.

The letter is different from other anonymous letters questioned here as fake hate. It is much more personal; the writer knows David and has for some time. The writer is disappointed in David choosing a black woman as his wife. The writer suggests he move to California but doesn't mean that literally as he quickly suggests a black neighborhood nearby in Birmingham. He's disappointed but conflicted in his "rejection". The California reference is meant as an insult for David's progressive values. The writer is older than David, likely a baby boomer or slightly older. The business itself isn't on the mind of the writer as it is never referred to. It's personal. Just as analysis of Ronda Copes' letter revealed marbles about her desire to leave the neighborhood as a motive, just as this letter ("black girl") shows money and sympathy of peers is leaked, if the letter sent to David were about his business, that would have leaked out. Now, to think of David and his wife as opportunistic for posting it in reference to the business is fair, but that's different from saying he wrote it. I could even believe it's an old letter David previously received and he pulled it out to use for gain, but he didn't write it.

I'm Not sure who did write it but scrolling through David's family members' Facebook pages- his father has an unexpected attitude towards David's (multiracial) children, his own grandchildren. He's certainly less educated than David and more "conservative" (culturally, not necessarily politically). He's my guess as the writer.

Trudy said...

Peter. Would you please post your conclusion (23 rd June 2015 on this blog) about the letter sent to David and Wani Shaw of the Sweet Ice Co. Birmingham? Is it fake hate mail? Thank you.

Anonymous - ask yourself Cui Bono.

Anonymous said...

ask yourself Cui Bono

I did and I addressed it in my comment.

Trudy said...

The letter has:
Polite and friendly use of first name, David, almost affectionate use of "boy" to describe David, soft language throughout, invitation to move to an area close by, and concern for the couple's comfort. It contains no swear words, no abusive language nor racial slurs and no threat, whatsoever.

Every single news article about this hoax hate letter featured a big picture of David and his wife outside their Sweet Ice shop, with the name of the shop prominently displayed. Every single news article referred to the location of the shop and the fact that it had opened two months prior to receiving the note.

The follow up articles in newspapers and online (every single one) feted the couple for their loving spirits and courage and triumphantly claimed that the hate letter had increased business for the Sweet Ice shop - and repeated the name and location of the shop.

Cui Bono? David, his wife and Sweet Ice.

Anonymous said...

You are describing how they used the letter to their benefit, which I admit they did. Your evidence is media coverage of the letter, not the language used by the writer of the letter. I'm analyzing only the letter itself, which makes no mention of or allusion to the business or their roles as business owners, which I would expect if their purpose in writing the letter was to gain sympathy and customers.

Anonymous said...

Sorry, you did refer to language in the letter, but the points made indicate a familiarity with them, not an intention to gain sympathy and increased business.

Anonymous said...

One more point, Trudy: I agree about the tone of the letter and that there is no threat. That's one of the main reasons it is not fake hate. In most fake hate examples, there is a threat: Charlie Rogers, Ricky Jones, and others harming themselves, garage doors with "kill the gays", rape threats, rape accusations. Relentlessly Gay wrote to herself "Keep it up and I will be forced to call the police on You!" The supposed threat of being fired in this recent letter above, the monetary threat implied in "we pay your mortgage". What percentage of these involve threat or faked physical assaults in an attempt to gain sympathy?:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.com/2016/05/fake-hate-examples.html?m=1

On the letter to David, You said:
"The letter has:
Polite and friendly use of first name, David, almost affectionate use of "boy" to describe David, soft language throughout, invitation to move to an area close by, and concern for the couple's comfort. It contains no swear words, no abusive language nor racial slurs and no threat, whatsoever."


Exactly! That's why it's different from fake hate.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

SNOPES says it is a genuine racist hate letter and the police chief has not seen something this offensive in 20 years

Peter

Anonymous said...

Why is it a police matter at all? Unless it's fraud.

Snopes writer Kim Capria says

"Although it is not uncommon for nasty letters and other controversies to be faked by social media users for attention or viral fame, this appears to be genuine"

Does she seem confident it's a fake hate letter?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

SNOPES is all but a giveaway here.

The letter is "fake hate" and is not written by a concerned parent nor by a racist.

I think most readers see this.

Racism is ugly and threats are real.

This is polite, has lots of choices, and is written to benefit the author.

more to follow...including the author's gender and race.


Peter

Statement Analysis Blog said...

SNOPES knows that Donald Trump wrote it.

The absurdity is how insane snopes is.

They proved that No Go zones did not exist.

They are leftist anti truth extremists. Everything they do has an agenda.

Bobcat said...

Malene 10/12 @ 2:23 exposed himself as a master of creative trolling.

Head done in, no doubt, all in an attempt to discredit SA.

Why?

The reasons are given on 10/12 at 3:19 pm.



Bobcat said...

Do you see how the full court press of new (and older - but none before the months following 11/2015) characters led Peter to a position of defense?

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Readers :

Do you think the black worker may have written this?



Peter

Anonymous said...

Yes.

she's not the first thing a child or the parents want to see when they walk in to the daycare.

That's where she tells us she's not a parent.

Lars Bak said...

Yes, or a collegue that she has said, looks like a nanny.

Anonymous said...

tania cadoganOctober 7, 2017 at 4:40 PM
The writer is female and black and has a good education in that she uses correct spelling and grammar with punctuation and capitalization appropriately.


I count 10 errors in a letter that's not all that long. The most glaring is she doesn't know when to make sentence breaks in some of the sentences and they run on. Because of this, her reading level is likely below an 8th grade level. She's an adult, but not well educated.

Hey Jude said...

I really have no idea who wrote it. How, if it was her, would the black girl benefit? What would be her motive - sympathy in being a minority, insecurity over her appearance, looking for affirmation from her employer and others, perhaps.

With the additional information, I might think it was the daycare owner. From just the letter, and on reflection, I am not confident it was the girl.

--
I so would like to know who wrote it.

Lucia D said...

I think it well could have been written by the black employee. If it was the motive was probably financial. Perhaps she was hoping to somehow turn this fake hate into a lawsuit for discrimination.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

A few things to consider...

the linguistic disposition towards blacks is "favorable." This is not a racist.

Money is a factor.


Often in "fake hate" the recipient is the writer or very close to the writer.

If you think the author may be male, could it be the worker's boyfriend? Or do you think the worker, herself wrote it?

Or...

is it some bizarre sympathy play due to money issues for the owner?

Hey Jude said...

IF it wasn't for the 'make it disappear', I would think it most likely was the worker who wrote it herself. It would make sense if she is a good worker, who knows she is liked by the parents and children, but who feels unappreciated - she could be looking for affirmation from her boss and the parents. It would be a bizarre way to go about it, though, moreso if she had worked there for a fair time. Is she new? I think she might be a new member of staff, as the parents have apparently 'noticed' her, when that would be unnecessary to say if she had worked there for any length of time - they all would already know she worked there, and would have noticed that already.

What is the 'it'? There doesn't seem to be an identifiable 'it'.

I keep coming back to it, but it doesn't become obvious, whatever 'it' is. I think it can't be the mortgage, because mortgages don't disappear, they are paid off - only things which are visible 'disapear'.

Hey Jude said...

Could 'it' be the copy of the letter? The writer says first that she hopes the recipient will make the girl 'aware she is not wanted.' If the letter has also been sent to the girl, she will already know that she is apparently not wanted by some parents, including the letter writer. Then she says 'I am sending her a copy as well' . If both letters were sent to the daycare, the owner would have the choice as to whether to pass on the copy to the girl - to 'make her aware she was not wanted' - or to make it disappear' - not give her the letter, so she would be unaware the letter had been written?

I don't know - she said 'I am sending' rather than 'I have sent' - which could be intentional rather than that she had already sent it, or included a copy for the owner to pass on.

Is it too much of a stretch to wonder if the owner herself had referred to the girl as 'NANNY' - and if the girl had overheard a conversation concerning her appearance, and if she had writtrn the letter in the knowledge that the owner would know only she was likely to have written it, due to the emphasis, upon the word 'Nanny'?

Could it be a blackmail attempt, for a pay increase, which backfired - the writer anticipating the owner could just make the letter go away, pretend it did not exist, increase her pay, or pay her to go away, or otherwise have a 'racist' incident involving her daycare. It would create a bad situation for the owner, were she just to discard the letters - it would be impossible to continue working with the girl, if she were the writer, could it be that rather than give in to known or suspected blackmail, the family published the letter - the owner in the knowledge that the girl would not admit to writing it - the children possibly unaware their parent had offended the worker, giving her 'cause' to write the letter?

---

If it were the result of an overheard conversation involving the owner, or one in which the owner, or the writer had participated - it need not be the girl who had written the letter - it could be anyone who was aware of such a conversation, and who anticipated some hush money or favourable treatment from the owner, who would destroy the letter/s - but she did not destroy the letters.

I can think a reason to publish the letter without regard to the girl's feelings would be a strong suspicion that the girl had written the letter herself because she had been called 'Nanny', and was looking for some recompense - they did not want to involve the police, were dealing with it 'internally' - can't think why they would do that, were it not to avoid a different type of embarrassment, such as having to admit that staff or owners really were making racist or personal comments about the girl's apoearance,

IDK. Is the letter a repetition of insults overheard, which the owner would recognise had been made by her?

--

I don't think the owner wrote it - they have a successful business. Publishing it backfired as much as writing it...they have been in business for decades. Maybe published it to foil the writer because they didn't want to involve the police.




Anonymous said...

Was there a solution to this?

Ruby

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 317 of 317   Newer› Newest»