By Jeremiah Tucker

Globe guest columnist

I moved away from Joplin nearly three years ago, and like many of my friends and fellow Joplin expatriates I’ve followed the endeavors and stories of my hometown by reading The Joplin Globe online.

Recently I read the Globe story about a new mosque opening in Joplin, and many of the readers’ online comments that followed the story were, to put it mildly, troubling.

One commentor named “Jason” wrote that he would not tolerate the Muslims worshiping at the mosque and ended his comment, “If they think Islam is so great, they should move to, or have stayed in, Islamic countries and continued to eat sand.”

“Hater” wrote, “I hate all Muslims the same. Perhaps we should prosecute them here like they prosecute Christians over there! They almost got it right, all ugly women should wear bags over their heads!”

In two swift comments these posters implied that Muslims of Middle-Eastern descent are savages who subsist on a diet of sand, that all Muslims hate Christians and all Muslim women are ugly. For a story about a community of religious people, many of whom have lived in Joplin for decades, the bile of these online comments was repugnant. Sadder still is that I wasn’t even surprised.

After three years of reading the Globe online, I’ve become accustomed to the spewing of hatred that follows most stories about minorities.

The Globe also ran a story about the Pittsburg State University Black Student Association trying to raise awareness about the Jena Six, a group of black teenagers arrested after beating up a white student in Jena, La., following a series of racially charged events. Among the ignorant comments that followed “Inhibitor” wrote, “I propose a candlelight vigil in honor of the ‘white boy’ only with torches instead of candles.”

Yes, you read that correctly. In 2007, a little more than 100 years after the last recorded lynching of a black person in Joplin, a Globe reader proposed another lynching.

However, perhaps the most blatant racism is reserved for stories concerning immigration or the Hispanic population. (Notice I drew a distinction between the two topics, a nuance lost on many Globe readers commenting online.)

After the Sept.10 story “Groups want Blunt chief fired for remark about Mexican workers” Concerned “CITIZEN” wrote, “I am tired of all this politically correct bs … I really don’t care if it offends your ‘Mexican’ heritage. If these jack a--’s are so ‘proud’ of their beloved Mexico maybe they should take themselves back and hopefully take their damn trucks with them before they ruin yet another career for Americans.”

In July of this year the Globe ran the story “Villa Espanola helps students learn Spanish” about a Spanish-language camp for kids at Missouri Southern State University.

From the very first comment people were outraged that English-speaking children were being taught Spanish. “Pappy” said he had heard of people learning “Mexican” but not English. From there the comments snowballed into a general attack on Hispanics, referred to generally as “Mexicans.”

“Roosevelt” wrote: “The Mexicans should be sent back to Mexico. Feel sorry for them all you want. But the truth is they bring diseases, drugs, crime, and most of all a burden on the American tax payers.”

When a reader going by the name “voice of reason” pointed out that a cultural event furthering the education of children was a good thing, the other online commentators ganged up on him. He was told “to go live in Mexico” and it was suggested his real name was “PONCHO!” Perhaps a reader who provided no name summed up the tone of the comments the best when he (or she) wrote: “I just hate Mexicans.”

This was only one of many Globe stories where grossly racist remarks aimed at Hispanics were published online, but I chose to quote this one in particular because it was an example of how even the most lighthearted story can turn into a forum for bigotry on the Globe’s Web site. I am a strong proponent of free speech, and I love that the Globe allows a forum for free expression — be it long columns of tortured logic, loopy non sequiturs, inside jokes or snarky retorts — but I don’t think The Joplin Globe should tolerate abusive language from racists.

I know the Globe screens comments for profanity and explosive language such as the “n-word” before publishing them on-line, but I think all racially motivated attacks and insults should also be excluded from publication. This does not meant I am opposed to publishing racially motivated arguments or ideas. For instance, if a Globe reader wants to post a comment about denying amnesty to the reported 12-million illegal immigrants in America, or if a reader wants to write that Islam is a religion that espouses violence, these may (or may not) be racially motivated opinions, but they are perfectly publishable.

It’s not the Globe’s job to suss out racism with every post. But when the bigotry appears in the form of blanket judgments about an entire race or outright hate speech, then I don’t see the benefit in publishing it and effectively granting anonymity and free license for racists to bully and rant. Many times these comments turn the entire comment section into a melee of hate, squashes any kind of beneficial dialogue and misrepresents the Joplin community.

Every time I read these comments I think, “God forbid any person of color considering a move to Joplin read the Globe online today.”



Jeremiah Tucker is a former Joplin resident. He writes a weekly entertainment column for The Joplin Globe.