In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff


We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.







Try Advanced Search


  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...


CultureBlogs
Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
PhilosoBlog
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Gregdotorg
BookSlut
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Cronaca
Plep
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Seablogger
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette


Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Samizdata
Junius
Joanne Jacobs
CalPundit
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Public Interest.co.uk
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
Spleenville
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
CinderellaBloggerfella
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
InstaPundit
MindFloss
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes


Miscellaneous
Redwood Dragon
IMAO
The Invisible Hand
ScrappleFace
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz

Links


Our Last 50 Referrers







« Seattle's New Sculpture Park | Main | Elsewhere »

April 24, 2007

Putting Duke in Perspective

Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

Here's an appalling recent crime that puts the Duke brouhaha in perspective.

How strange that the media establishment should devote oceans of coverage to something that never actually happened while pretty much ignoring an atrocity as horrifying as this one. Hey, here's another awful crime that also didn't get nationwide -- let alone Duke-scale -- attention.

How to explain what strikes me at least as a really perplexing lack of perspective?

I guess the general respectable-society feeling is along the lines of "black people do this kind of thing all the time, so it isn't 'newsworthy,' and besides we have decided as a society to cut black people a lot of slack, at least so far as how we talk about them goes, so mainstream people should simply ignore these kinds of crimes," or something.

Given what a dramatic role the web and blogs have played in opening up certain discussions that were looooooong overdue for opening-up -- immigration policy, how full-of-it much contempo art is, etc. -- I find it bizarre that the "black people commit 'way too much of the violent crime that gets committed in the U.S." discussion is still under wraps. Don't you? So far the topic seems largely confined to white-nationalist sites, where hosts and visitors often wish black people ill. Yucko to that.

I wonder why the topic is so danced-around by respectable people. Is it really that much more dicey a topic than all others?

Perhaps it is. Perhaps as a society we've made "a concern for the feelings and self-esteem of black people" symbolic of "good intentions" generally. Perhaps we've talked ourselves into believing that saying something like "Good lord, did you know that a black American is 39 times more likely to physically harm a white American than vice versa?" isn't a statement of humane concern but is instead a sign that the speaker is a miserable and undeserving human being.

(Here are some more startling broken-down-by-race American crime facts. Be warned: This document is lodged at a white-nationalist site. Two quick points about that: 1) To my knowledge, the facts contained in this document have never been seriously challenged. And 2) There's no place else where one can find these facts out. This is because respectable organizations -- the government, the foundations, the press -- simply refuse to examine and present these numbers. Which makes me at least wonder: If those who are curious about such facts wind up poking around sites they'd otherwise avoid, isn't this really the fault of the establishment that has suppressed the facts in the first place?)

If it's true that we have collectively decided that it's a mark of decency to avoid these topics ... Well, it seems to me like such a bad convention / expectation / policy. As well as a destructive one. It's a terrible disservice to the facts of the matter, as well as an insult to well-meaning people of all races. How is this awful situation ever going to improve, after all, if we don't first allow ourselves to take public note of it? And -- if we don't allow ourselves to acknowledge and discuss these matters -- isn't it in fact inevitable that the situation will get worse?

(For what it's worth, I find this state of affairs yet one more reason to admire the guts of decent people like Steve Sailer. It's quite amazing how willing Steve is to stand up in public and talk about these questions. And while using his own name ...)

Hmmm. As I type this posting out, I notice that I'm doing a little tap-dance of my own: I'm trying to dodge the urge to add the phrase "and I like black people!" to the posting. After all, anyone who says "some of my best friends are black" is automatically turning himself into a laughing-stock. And I'm no more eager than anyone else is to be laughed at.

Yet, y'know, I do like black people. I'm even sorry that I don't have many close black friends. (A good topic for a blog-posting in its own right.) I like the role of black people in American history; I admire the gigantic contributions they've made to American culture; I've been humbled by the class -- the humor, resilience, and pride -- that so many of them have shown in the face of a lot of obstacles; I'm often delighted by their talents, their style, and their spirit. One of my personal intellectual / artistic heroes is the great Albert Murray, a black genius from whom I've learned as much as I've learned from anyone.

So the hell with my wimpiness. I'm gonna throw caution aside and say it: I like black people!

Anyway: Are we doing black people -- let alone the country generally -- any favors by ignoring crimes like the ones I linked to above while making huge to-dos over non-events like the Duke mess? And: Does it make sense for an otherwise freewheeling, open, and patchwork society to be buttoned-up about a topic as important and substantial as race and crime? Doesn't this kind of denial-of-the-obvious drive everyone a bit nuts?

Eager to hear everyone's musings about this question. Still, let me first pause for a deep breath. When a lid is taken off of a hot topic, things will tend to boil over and run out of control. So let's take that into account. For those tempted to join in, I have a request: Please, let's agree to keep the discussion civil and respectful. Let's make it the discussion's starting point that we mean everyone well. Well, aside from psychopathic criminals, that is. We all need to protect ourselves against them.

Best,

Michael


posted by Michael at April 24, 2007




Comments

Didn't Tony Blair just get in a heap o' trouble for voicing some of these same concerns? It's akin to what you have described as the hysterical irrationality of certain elements of the gay-rights movement when pointing out that their own sexual habits just might have contributed to the spread of STD's, and the cries of "homophobe!" which immediately follow.

And why wouldn't blacks welcome concern over black-on-black crime?

1. One thinks that they must believe that the "conern" is not well-intentioned: i.e., it will be used against them somehow as in "see...they're just irresponsible, they haven't done anything with their new rights but get more violent, so forget affirmative action, it's OK to hassle them in public places..." and therefore better to not even bring it up. Like volunteering your honest thoughts about the way a process can be improved at work, and discovering your boss uses your input to brand you a complainer. You won't be "volunteering the truth" again any time soon!! So blacks don't discuss it and brand whites who bring it up "racists" as a way of shutting down a conversation which they believe will not benefit them in the long run.

2. And of course, as long as the conversation is shut down, whites seethe, and the distrust remains.

3. It is an awfully intractable problem, compounded by the fact that in all likelihood a lot of whites haven't been very trustworthy, but also by the fact that even when the motives may be constructive---as I believe Tony Blair's were---black reaction and cries of "racist" bite the hands that might actually be inclined to feed them, so to speak. There is an awful lot of knee-jerk.

4. In an interview after the Dom Imus affair, Lou Dobbs on CNN tried to raise the fact that while Imus' remarks were deplorable, he finds language like that deplorable every time he hears it, including black rappers, and questioned black guests about whether their motives could be considered pure if they weren't standing up to rappers and everyone who used disrespectful language. The answer? "Ill be glad to criticize a black host of a talk show on MSNBC as soon as there is a black host on MSNBC! There is a bigger issue here..." And then whites sigh in frustration.

5. However, if blacks feel they get short end of the racial stick in America, they really should realize that "talking about it" benefits them more than not. And every time some dumb yahoo trots out the old criticisms, you just put Barack Obama or Harold Ford Jr. up there to calmly and eloquently demonstrate the yahoo as a yahoo. And then we can actually get to a more serious conversation. Works wonders. They should try it. Blacks might realize that whites have solved some complex problems in their day, and some might even really help. Just a thought. But whites should also remember that a lot of blacks in this country are living quite a different experience than their own.

Posted by: annette on April 24, 2007 11:53 AM



The mythology of the sainted black martyr was built on Hollywood films that literally and relentlessly defamed southern white men as violent racists. The civil rights movement didn't seem able to just argue that some blacks were good and some were bad, and that they still should be afforded their rights. No, the civil rights movement argued that blacks were morally superior to whites. We are living now with the consequences of all the phony dramatization and fake martyrdom.

The need to create martyrs drives this farce. The same process is at work as the left struggles to deify homosexuals as sainted martyrs. Crime statistics do not support the notion of a wave of hate crimes against gays either. Solution. Heavy handed propaganda films, like “Brokeback Mountain” that portray gays as sainted martyrs struggling against violent and bigoted straight men. If only sainted gay men could marry, the argument goes, they wouldn’t be living lives of outrageous promiscuity. Straights are responsible for their deaths!

The process is always the same. Build the mythology of martyrdom so that only a mean spirited, hard hearted bastard could possibly oppose the left's aims.

Liberalism really has become a religion. What better proof than the horrible Duke episode? Public genuflection before the race/class/sex religion is now a job prerequisite. This is true, not only in academia, but in the arts. Fealty to doofus Marxism is expected and demanded in these fields. Blacks have been anointed as a class as sainted martyrs. The violence that blacks commit is thus transposed into justified revenge.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 24, 2007 11:58 AM



Yep, a religion it is. I just got myself in hot water by merely suggesting to a liberal friend in a social setting that I support nuclear power. Apparently she was seriously offended by this, I found out later. It was as if I was saying that we should burn puppies to solve our energy problems. Wow, what a lot of taboos the left has crammed down America's throat. But, I think we're waking up from this particular bad dream.

Posted by: Todd Fletcher on April 24, 2007 12:24 PM



Michael, I think that we can all agree that Political Correctness (which dictates this sort of behavior from the MSM) is a perverted and EVIL religion.

For me, the question then becomes, how much do we blame the people who institute and perpetuate it and how Evil do we then consider those people?

Posted by: Ian Lewis on April 24, 2007 12:59 PM



Michael, I am curios, you have mentioned how much you like and admire Black people and their contributions to American culture. But, would you speak honestly about the scientific contributions of Blacks in America and Africa?

This is a serious question.

Posted by: Ian Lewis on April 24, 2007 1:02 PM



I don't understand why you think that the disparity of press coverage devoted to the Duke accusations compared to the Columbia attack, has anything to do with race.

The Duke situation had the makings of a good story: a group of privileged youths at a prestige college rape an exotic dancer. The story is interesting because kids who generally do not commit serious crimes, were accused of very heinous crimes.

The Columbia story, by contrast, has a very familiar storyline: dude with long record of serious crimes commits ANOTHER heinous crime after being released from incarceration. We expect ex-felons to commit more crimes. That's not very interesting.

Therefore, the disparity can be explained without reference to race. Why are you convinced it has anything to do with race?

Posted by: James on April 24, 2007 1:26 PM



I spent 3 months in America a couple of summers ago. 2 American girls I met had been raped by blacked men, 100% serious. One came from a religious family and yet had to get an abortion, it was so terrible.

Posted by: adrian on April 24, 2007 1:26 PM



Thank you for your posting and for alerting us to this terrible crime. As I have done a little surfing around this crime, I have found a lot of vitriol and blatantly racist comments. Sad.

My thoughts on this topic are similar to my thinking on many contemporary American cultural and political issues of a divisive nature. We have a really hard time in this country having nuanced and calm conversations about anything. To raise our voices in reason we must act and speak with an assertive dignity that allows for complexity and opposition.

It seems to me that any proper study of race in America must first address the phenomenological chasms that exist within our amazingly diverse society. And this is no easy task--in fact to some degree it is impossible. But at the very least we must try to walk in the other's shoes. The power of empathy to inform must not be underestimated.

Yet, I do not intend to promote empathy as another way to side step or ignore the kind of (well made) point you made in your posting. Rather, I believe a healthy substrate of empathy is the foundation upon which diverse and complicated subjects can be discussed and hashed out.

So, in that light, I laud your missives for respectful dialogue.

Posted by: The Lock on April 24, 2007 1:32 PM



The Duke case got so much publicity at first because the accused were athletes at a major university. Black D1 athletes who commit crimes get similar media treatment. The reason the story got so big was that it became clear that there was no good case against the boys and, since they were white and the accuser was black, right-wing pundits began whooping and hollering about the injustice. (You don't see them making a stink about all the poor black kids with public defenders who get railroaded by the justice system, after all.)

I don't have a good answer to why the horrific crimes you link to haven't received wide-scale attention, but then, you haven't shown that if the races were reversed, it would have. The fact that CNN et al spend so much time on missing white girl stories and so little on missing anybody else stories leads me to believe that they are more sympathetic to white victims.

I thought Blair's remarks were courageous and might be the start of a new era of politics where people can be more honest about the situation without being (successfully) branded as racists. I think it could possibly happen in America as well, although it would be difficult.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on April 24, 2007 1:37 PM



"Black D1 athletes who commit crimes get similar media treatment."

No, you are wrong. This is not true.

My alma mater, the University of Illinois, went through a similar incident several years ago.

Three black members of the Illini basketball team that went to the national championship game in 2005 were implicated in a series of burglaries in the Champaign-Urbana area. While the press did cover this event, it certainly was not fodder for a national press hysteria. And, the athletes were treated with considerable sympathy and given very light probationary sentences.

More directly, three black football players at a college virtually next door to Duke were accused of gang raping a white woman in the midst of the Duke hoax. The press has paid virtually no attention to this story. Needless to say, the leftist media has not been wringing its hands in agony over the implications of black racism in this incident.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on April 24, 2007 1:56 PM



Like James and JewishAtheist I come at this from a different angle. The Duke story was big because it was about rich kids at a prestigious university committing a horrific crime -- not the dog-bites-man story of low-lifes committing a horrific crime. And it stayed in the news because, after all, rich kids can afford high-priced lawyers who drum up a lot of publicity on their behalf. And hey, the system worked, as it usually does for rich kids -- they weren't guilty, got off, and now (thanks to their high-priced lawyers) are going after the people who went after them in civil court.

Pardon me if I can't very outraged on their behalf.

On the other hand, how many down-and-out lowlifes have gotten railroaded like the Duke guys but, without the advantage of high-priced lawyers and massive media publicity, are currently silently rotting in jail? Lots. Again, dogs bites man.

Posted by: Steve on April 24, 2007 2:03 PM



Journalists really are just after a good story. Hardly any of them have any grand cause they are trying to further, other than their own careers (like everyone else), and they know what sells. The Duke case has all the right elements of a fantastic story, worthy of a Grisham novel. Class, race, athletics, over-eager DA, unreliable plaintiff, etc. It was an unusual case and therefore got a lot of coverage, which was only fanned by peoples' reactions to the case as the facts trickled out. A news cycle is recursive, so the more the public clamor for it, the more the press feeds it.

The cases linked in this post are perhaps too grisly and depressing to be of ongoing national interest. I'd find it hard to believe that people would be clamoring for more details regarding those cases. And yeah, the fact that the attacker all had prior records just doesn't make it as unusual as 3 members of a Division I sports team.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the discussion of race is handled properly in the US.

Posted by: the patriarch on April 24, 2007 2:54 PM



Annette -- It's interesting how much more frank the Brits are about multiculturalism, immigration, and crime right now, isn't it? I wonder how that has happened, and whether it'll lead to anything worthwhile. I like your idea about how to shut up the yahoos too.

ST -- "Doofus Marxism" is really good. We should start a campaign to get people using the term. Maybe ridicule and shame will shake a few people out of their delusions.

Todd -- You support nuclear? Out to the woodshed with you!

Ian -- One wonders about PC a lot, no? I mean, the usual public thing is to say, "Well, it was well-intended and they meant well but ..." But a lot of the time it really looks worse than that. It looks like control freaks who are oppressing the rest of us. And besides, when does "hewing to a policy that has repeatedly shown itself to be destructive" stop being well-intended-if-unfortunate and become "stupid," or even "evil"? As for blacks and science, my knowledge of science is sub-9th grade, so I'll recuse myself from that one. But I'm not someone who thinks every population group has to be represented in an area of achievement at the same level it has in the general population. I wouldn't even expect that to be the case. What if, say, people of Scotch-Irish descent dominate the moonshining trade? It means that their showing in some other fields will be substandard. But so what?

James -- The Duke case *was* a good story, of course. But how can you think that the play it got didn't have anything to do with race? The accused were white, the accuser was black, the DA was pandering to a black electorate, and the press was quick to pick up on and foreground every one of those facts.

Adrian -- That's awful, sorry to hear it. Hey, I once got mugged in NYC ... by a multicultural mini-gang: one white, one Hispanic, one black. It was like something off an episode of a politically correct crime series.

The Lock -- You write "We have a really hard time in this country having nuanced and calm conversations about anything." I'll say! Or at least we have trouble discussing anything of substance. Any theories about why this is so?

JewishAtheist -- It'd be great if we started being able to have somewhat more-open conversations, wouldn't it? I'm not entirely sure I agree with you, though, when you say that black college athletes would have received similar press treatment had the races in the Duke case been flipped ...

Steve -- Yeah, the Duke case was certainly a good story (though god knows the press could have been a little more skeptical of the initial charges). And it'd be great if the press were more on the ball where poor-people-getting-railroaded is concerned. That's a traditional function of the press, and it does seem like they've been dodging it in recent years. Still, it's not like the wild overrepresentation of blacks among violent criminals *isn't* a good story. Yet the press doesn't go there.

Patriarch -- I think you're being shrewd about the press but I think you may be missing one element, which is that the press corps goes along to get along. If no one in the press is ever raising the black-overrepresentation-in-violent-crime topic, then eager and ambitious reporters and editors probably won't either. But why should this ethos be in effect in the first place? And why should raising the question be left to bloggers?

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 24, 2007 3:28 PM



Michael:

It'd be great if we started being able to have somewhat more-open conversations, wouldn't it?

I think blogs will slowly get us there. I found the dust-up between Sailer and Gladwell fascinating and I'm hoping we'll see a much improved Gladwell in the future. Journalists all over the world are finding out that there are thousands of intelligent people out here just waiting to fact-check (and logic-check) everything they write and some of us have the influence to matter.

Perhaps I'm being naively optimistic.

Posted by: JewishAtheist on April 24, 2007 4:14 PM



The Lock -- You write "We have a really hard time in this country having nuanced and calm conversations about anything." I'll say! Or at least we have trouble discussing anything of substance. Any theories about why this is so?

I laughed when reading this question, only because my first response is to think to myself "That's a complex question". And, of course, it is.

A lot of it has to do with identity, I think. It is the old anthropological question concerning the "in group" and "out group". We are still coming to terms with the displacement that started with the success of agriculture and has now increased exponentially in the last 200 years with the industrial and digital revolutions. And I think that we can see this if we examine the issue linguistically. Our reliance on old categories--liberal vs. conservative being a great example--puts artificial limits in terms of identity. I'm not saying that these categories do not have descriptive merit. But in terms of identity, it seems more and more meaningless in these latter days to define oneself or another in these terms.

Such rigidity has both cultural and psychological underpinnings. It is good and necessary to have a strong sense of identity. But, clearly, identity often is of a greater value to groups and individuals than an unabashed search for the "truth" or a greater need for unity. And maybe that is because often all that is left after a good search for truth is an ugly postmodern mess that we are either cognitively or emotionally unable or unwilling to handle. Everyone needs simplicity sometime...............

So I ask you these questions:
1. What do we risk in sacrificing identity for either the sake of "truth" or perhaps a larger sense of identity.
2. What kinds of identity are there, if any, that everyone in America can hold to?

Posted by: The Lock on April 24, 2007 4:18 PM



A couple of points:

(1) Truly accurate stats that capture the realities of inter-racial crime don't really exist. Why? Well, for a long time the major forms of crime statistics released by the federal government (the Uniform Crime Report, the National Incident Based Reporting System and the National Crime Victimization Survey) have tended to fold Hispanics into the white category (this has now ended, more or less, but trying to make long-term sense is thus difficult). About the only clear sense one can take from the stats is that black-on-white/Hispanic crime is more pronounced than the other way around, especially so when it comes to certain crimes like sexual assault/rape and (to a lesser degree) robbery. For those who are curious, you can do worse than checking out the NCVS statistical tables yourself.

(2) The media cycle seems to be driven by an obsession with fitting things into big over-arching narratives. The two stories you mention are fairly conventional (although unusually brutal) crimes committed by very ugly characters. The Duke story, on the other hand, was (as a casual perusal of the stats will show) a man-bites-dog tale that came coated in plenty of 'resonance' for all concerned to get their teeth into. Places like Duke have battalions of people who have built their careers on the basis of their opposition to the meanies of the White Patriarchy, and here it was, in the flesh, manifesting like some ancient kraken. A gift too good to ignore, no? Of course, they made fools of themselves, but that happens sometimes in life.

(3) The high black crime rate is one of those things that everyone knows about, whether or not they know all the precise details (I'll admit to being quite surprised when I first discovered that over the last couple decades in most years more than half of all murder victims in the US have been black). Unfortunately, it is something that doesn't seem all that open to amelioration through social engineering, given the huge amounts of money that have conspicuously failed to transform the ghettos for the better.

(4) If the races had been reversed, the Duke story would not have become a big story unless the guys were either celebrities (basketball players or something like that) or the girl was well-known or well-connected. After all, Kobe Bryant's rape trial received huge media attention. But three random black guys and an anonymous white girl? Local paper, if that, although certainly a piece in the college paper.

Posted by: Bleh Blehkins on April 24, 2007 4:44 PM



We don’t like talking about bad things we don’t think we can do anything about. Black cultural pathologies are something we white folk seem to have concluded are intractable, and which can therefore only be contained, not eliminated or even substantially reduced (a conclusion that is empirically false, by the way). Whites have withdrawn from any concern for blacks, especially concern for how blacks treat one another, and care only for the services blacks can provide to whites as entertainers and athletes.

Cases like that young white couple are seen as anomalies, breakdowns not of black culture, from which whites have come to expect just this sort of barbarity, but of white containment of, and distance from, that culture. Whites have long believed that the only response to members of a culture that seems both unable and unwilling to assimilate to (relatively) law-abiding white norms, is to re-segregate, which means white folk getting as far away from black folk as possible (unless they’re performing for us, of course).

Unfortunately, every now and then, some of the non-performing blacks manage to close the distance between us and them. With the result being, at least from the white perspective, not entertaining at all.

Posted by: PatrickH on April 24, 2007 4:54 PM



Just heard an NPR report on Amnesty International finding an epidemic of rape and murder of Native American women on reservations by non-native outsiders. The perps apparently realize that tribal police have no jurisdiction over them, State police won't investigate crimes on tribal lands, and the Federal authorities aren't investigating and prosecuting either.

Again, the system worked for the Duke guys. Native American women? Not so much.

Posted by: Steve on April 24, 2007 6:20 PM



I doubt that the horrific crime ever happened, and I am dismayed that you would post that account without checking credentialed news sources or asking to see court records. Notice that the account doesn't say where, no mention of a state or city or county, or give the criminal charges. The reason it got no press was that it probably never happened. Show me some local coverage, at least. You can't keep a crime like that out of papers.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 24, 2007 6:26 PM



The liberals who justify the MSM silence on the by Christopher Newsom and Channon Christian horror would sound just a little more human if they made at least a little acknowledgment of the inhumanity of what those animals did to those kids.

Posted by: PA on April 24, 2007 7:00 PM



Richard -- I definitely should have supplied a better source. Nonetheless, and sadly, the crime really did happen. Here's a National Review piece about the Newsom/Christian murders. And here's a local report about the arraignment of a few of the suspects. Here's a local account of the crime.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 24, 2007 7:14 PM



Here are some very interesting stats.

Posted by: Bob Grier on April 24, 2007 7:17 PM



Patriarch,

Saying that journalists have no agenda is so amazingly false. Remember how Dan Rather lost his job? He and his staff INVENTED a false story about president Bush in order to smear him during an ELECTION!

Tell me these guys at CBS have no agenda! They wanted to slander a sitting president and help determine the outcome of the presidential election! It doesn't get much bolder than that.

Its going on all over--the suppposed guardians of free speech are using their positions to slander, libel, falsely report, censor, and slant news all the time, and in a leftward fashion.

As far as the Knoxville story having no legs, that must be why its been so widely broadcast on the internet--nobody cares.

Face it, the press is systematically censoring and misrepresenting minority and illegal alien crime. Why? In order to keep the white majority population from knowing the truth and acting in its own behalf against immigration, both legal and illegal, further segregating itself from blacks to protect themselves and their families, and organizing to form racial organizations that act on their behalf. Can't have that. It might mean that they were wrong about the Great Society all these years later. And how much money have we wasted on that? How many trillions?

Posted by: BIOH on April 24, 2007 7:19 PM



What is to be done about black on white crime? Nothing...other than to segregate; which the country is quietly doing. Whites are withdrawing to the interior. And in the coastal states, whites have, with rare exceptions, long since abandoned the old center cities. Is this a good thing? a bad thing? Neither. It's a necessary thing. Why should whites, especially whites with hostages to fortune, their children, gamble all on rhetoric both empty and specious? Survival trumps noble blather -- every time.

Posted by: ricpic on April 24, 2007 7:36 PM



Long-term risks to the black community caused by Don Imus-style comments: Zero

Long-term risks to the black community caused by MONSTROUSLY disproportionate black crime rates: Enormous.

Posted by: Peter on April 24, 2007 7:39 PM



This particular crime was so horrific that I think the authorities were afraid that, it it got out, it would inflame the white community to a dangerous extent.

Posted by: Luke Lea on April 24, 2007 8:59 PM



Thank you, Steve, for mentioning the Amnesty International report about one-in-three assaults on female Native Americans. I just heard the NPR report on the radio a few minutes ago, but it was old news to me. This has been going on for fifty years that I know of personally. Native American women are still being treated as "squaws" even though they've managed to shut down the word in most cases. I can walk more safely on the reservation than my Blackfeet friends can -- even though it's THEIR reservation -- because the scumbags of any color know that my death would trigger bigtime FBI action -- not that I'm important, but that I'm white.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on April 24, 2007 9:13 PM



I just read the horrific crime story. It's my understanding that this story was discredited some time ago. Not that similar things don't happen. Around here the incidents like this are likely to white on red. I suspect there are places where the same happens white on black.

The idea of pitting one crime against another is a poor rhetorical strategy. And whatever shuts Don Imus up is probably helpful.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on April 24, 2007 9:18 PM



Mary Scriver writes: "It's my understanding that this story was discredited some time ago."

Oh, yeah? Go here...

http://www.volunteertv.com/special

Posted by: Bob Grier on April 24, 2007 10:01 PM



P. Mary -- I'll be happy (if mortified) to correct or retract if necessary. And please let me know if you turn up evidence that the case has been discredited. But the most recent accounts I find about it online have the suspects in jail, accused of up to 46 counts of kidnapping, sexual assault, and murder. Wikipedia has an account and some links. Here's the latest story I find.

The abuse of rez women that you and Steve cite sounds like a good story too.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 24, 2007 10:06 PM



In my opinion, the current state of Blacks in America is the result of years of systematic slavery. You reap what you sow. You can't enslave a group of people and not expect any long-term repercussions. How to solve it? Beats me!

Posted by: ETaste on April 24, 2007 10:59 PM



ETaste,

If this behavior is due to slavery, then why is rape, murder, and theft pandemic in Africa and the Carribbean? Why are black Canadians, black Britons, black French, hell, blacks everywhere doing the same thing without experiencing slavery? No, if this level of crime is everywhere black people are, it is not a culture, but a way of reacting and living that is probably related to genetics. I don't see how it can't be. What that also means is that a huge portion of black people are simply incapable of living in a civilized society.

Anyone who says that an innocent victim of a crime deserves it is pathetic an disgusting.

Blaming this crap on whites when slavery ended 140 years ago is ridiculous and nobody believes it. You need to think up a new excuse. Not that anybody will believe that either. I wish I could say a lot worse, but the moderator told us to be civil.

Posted by: BIOH on April 24, 2007 11:24 PM



Survival trumps noble blather

When I found a university or country, I'm going to translate that into Latin for the motto!

Posted by: Agnostic on April 25, 2007 1:57 AM



Michael, "good" might not be the best choice of words for the "Native American women" story. Whether or not the "ghastly crimes" you cite are specifically and individually true, I'm willing to admit that crimes like them happen all the time. In fact, the most horrible ones I've read about (and I don't find the one you cite that much more horrible than others I know about) have been against children, sometimes by their own mothers. Describing them just plays into the phenomenon of titillation. And much of the "eroticism" of raping Indian women is from confusing sex with violence.

In my opinion violence happens across power gradients whether it's soldiers against noncombatants (Iraq stories), adults against children, men against women, nutcases with guns against peaceful others, white against black in white majorities and black against white in black majorities, cops against suspects, jailers against prisoners, etc. People do such things because they can and because they are emotionally twisted.

The scandal is people collecting salaries for compensating for or controlling such violence who sit in their offices and do nothing. Or legislators who allow power vacuums simply by not addressing confused jurisdictions because confusion can be exploited. Oh, yes -- remember that power gradient that involved FBI on a rez? They thought they were invulnerable and in that situation they were NOT.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on April 25, 2007 6:19 AM



BIOH

I agree. The black crime rate seems to be caused by (not in any order)

A. Low IQ's - resulting in both poverty and less consideration of an actions long term consequences.

B. Proven higher testosterone levels, violence-propensity in general is strongly correlated with testosterone levels.

C. Greater physical strength than all other groups (power corrupts)

D. Lack of a father figure to discipline them, 69% of black children have no father. This has been caused by both the pre-94 welfare state (which allowed black women to marry the state) and in a terrible spiral, the high crime rates themselves (which took large numbers of black males off the streets - 36% more black women than men in NY - thus resulting in a skewed sex ratio, making it a gazzilion times easier for black males to screw around & undermine the family further)

E. Culture - rap etc.

F. Deindustrialisation - black males hard backs used to allow them to get ok, manly jobs in industry. Now all that's left for them is undignified, unmanly (from their perspective) service jobs.

Posted by: adrian on April 25, 2007 7:38 AM



Prairie Mary, I'm disappointed to see you still equivocating over the veracity of the Christian/Newsome case, rather than admitting your information was incorrect. It's an interesting phenomenon, though, the way a story like this seems to beg for debunking, because it's not only a horrible thing in itself, it's also *politically* uncomfortable.

You also say,

"In my opinion violence happens across power gradients, [for example] white against black in white majorities and black against white in black majorities."

More equivocation. Show me that blacks are victimized at anything like the same rate as whites in these situations. The victimization surveys someone linked to above show an extremely low rate of white-on-black sexual assault (the year I looked at didn't record a single victim) but a very high rate of black-on-white violence (about a third of white victims).

It's worth noting that black women are assaulted at more than twice the rate of white women, almost always by black men. I wonder how many cases involve the level of brutality of the Christian/Newsome. Some, I bet.

It's interesting, isn't it, how white-red relations seem to have a different character than white-black relations, both in the States and Canada. In my opinion, our thinking around race is strongly determined by the historical fact of white enslavement of blacks, and this makes a poor template for other intergroup relationships.

Posted by: Intellectual Pariah on April 25, 2007 10:25 AM



Let me add that I'm only taking you to task here because your comments are usually so sensible.

Posted by: Intellectual Pariah on April 25, 2007 10:27 AM



Adrian -- That's an interesting list, tks. I'd add two more elements: one is outta-control immigration, which is hitting blacks far harder than any other group. The other is simply the fact that no one talks publicly about these problems. If you never have to look yourself in the mirror -- if you're in fact protected from looking at yourself in the mirror -- you might well spend your whole life unaware that you've got a huge (and growing) wart on your nose.

P. Mary -- Eager to learn more about white/red relations, which I have no experience of. (Well, five minutes total.) But I'm guessing that you've never worked in journalism. A "good story" so far as the journalism biz is concerned is one that grabs people and makes 'em come back for more. War is often a "good story," as are scandals. As was Duke -- first because (had it been true) it was so unusual, and second (once the hoaxishness started to become apparent) for a whole tangle of reasons.

But gaudily brutal murders, like the ones I linked to to kick this posting off, are "good stories" too -- or at least in traditional journalism terms have always been. Kidnaping, eyelid-slitting, dousing-with-poisons, setting-on-fire ... That's "Silence of the Lambs" stuff.

So the question arises: Why haven't editors all over the country pounced on these murders? It wouldn't require a lot of writing/editing talent to turn 'em into compulsive reading. So there must be some reason why the stories haven't caught on countrywide. And why hasn't the larger theme story -- about what an amazingly high percentage of violent crimes are committed by black people -- caught on? I'm guessing that it's PC-ness and general protectiveness towards black people. And I'm wondering if this kind of protectiveness (assuming I'm right) is a Good Thing. I suspect it isn't, of course, but no reason people can't disagree...

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 25, 2007 11:17 AM



1. The crime occured.

2. The pre-mortem mutilations did not.

Follow the blog postings back to the original and you'll find that the charge of pre-mortom mutilations comes from a single person, who lists no reliable source for her claims. In addition, she has repliad to only one request for information. There is no primary source, and others in the blogosphere have concluded it's most likely the case of one blogger either making stuff up, or getting wild speculation from an inside source.

Posted by: Alan Kellogg on April 25, 2007 11:21 AM



I guess President Bush was dead-on when he warnd us all of the "soft racism of low expectations". I read the story and thought two things:
1/ Kill em.
2/ It figures

I guess we all suffer from it.

Posted by: Matt on April 25, 2007 12:36 PM



Does your first link lead to a news story?
I guess a lot of my ambivalence comes from a distrust of color-blind arrest policies. While the likelihood of sensational crimes like this to make the front page of a high-minded newspaper is not colorblind, discussing headlines and the ugliest crimes is a way to get people feeling rather than thinking. Most crimes are minor; what fraction of fratboy bar fights or domestic disputes that are broken up by police result in a felony prosecution? Were violence randomly distributed,
any member of a 12.5% minority would be roughly 64-fold more likely to attack a member of the majority than vice-versa.
This site's constant harping on racial slants to crime while ignoring any effect of social class is
pretty ugly. If the real problem is weak families
in inner cities, why not write about that? David Simon manages to do that in a way that doesn't turn a blind eye to barbarism.
Out of curiosity, have you invited any of the black people you like to read this posting of yours?

Posted by: lw on April 25, 2007 1:28 PM



So where do we stand on the factual issue: did the mutilations take place or not?

Posted by: Luke Lea on April 25, 2007 2:23 PM



Michael Blowhard - "It's interesting how much more frank the Brits are about multiculturalism, immigration, and crime right now, isn't it? I wonder how that has happened, and whether it'll lead to anything worthwhile.


Our (Britain's) approach is simply down to the difference in land-mass and population density. Obviously being a much smaller nation than the US, with different communities and races living cheek-by-jowell in our inner cities; It's much harder for the liberal/left to spin, lie, ignore or hide in cognitive dissonance; when certain communities' criminal inclinations and disproportionate behaviour is there for most people to witness first-hand.

Another reason for our media/politcal classes' new found, some would say long over-due honesty, is down to the pro-white British National Party, currently the fastest growing in the UK. Their no-nonsense, race-realistic approach to the failing multi-cult is currently hoovering up a lot of support in both traditional Labour and Conservative heartlands.


Posted by: Jeff on April 25, 2007 2:25 PM



Intel Par -- I reckon Kellog took care of some of your issue.

Michael -- Jargon like "good story" should be used in the context (among journalists) to which it belongs. As Imus discovered, using ironies in places where irony is not appreciated can get a person into trouble. (I don't think for one minute that Imus really meant what he said.)

Are you all forgetting "strange fruit?" Are you forgetting the man who not so long ago was dragged behind a pickup until he was in pieces? Are you ignoring the long list of prostitutes of all colors who go missing in this country with no investigation?

Okay, some credentials. NOT statistics. My high school in Portland, OR, was one-fifth black when I attended. My class had at least two major achievers who were black men beyond any norms -- I mean, high level professors and military people. In latter years my mother's house was engulfed by Portland's black ghetto -- which Portland doesn't like to talk about. Shooting, shrieks in the night, nine bodies found within a two block radius, gangs, drugs, etc. etc. But mainly grinding poverty.

Being an animal control officer in the Seventies meant going into nabes that made the cops nervous and racist. In the 90's I was working for the City of Portland nuisance and housing departments and though I wasn't on the street, the data ran through my hands all day every day. I was working beside Blacks, rode the bus to work with them, never went home to dinner with them and never invited them to my house. (Anyone who has suffered through my cooking tends to have excuses anyway.) I did go to one man's Black church with him and it was an excellent experience. (His wife sent his kids along as chaperones.)

My mother taught Black kids. One became a huge security guard at a local racist shopping mall. (No credit accounts for Blacks.) My mother loved to scandalize her friends by walking up to him and hugging him. I warned her that was dangerous. There were some excellent Black restaurants where she and I enjoyed soul food. Another huge tall Black man would come to tie a bib on the customers -- he was a Blazer basketball team guy. I wish I had a photo of my little old white-haired mom getting her bib tied on.

What I'm saying is that you guys need to get out more.

But this was about Duke, to start with. I think their frat culture -- like city ghetto culture -- stinks and ought to be disrupted. But introducing racism only distracts from the lowlife behavior of these guys.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on April 25, 2007 2:46 PM



Alan -- You're a better researcher than I, tks. I suspect that many more facts will emerge as the trial gets nearer and takes place. I wonder what they'll be. And I wonder if the national press will take any note.

Matt -- Sad, no?

LW -- I appreciate you stopping by and commenting, and since this is the first time I'm happy to cut you slack. But please knock off the prosecuting attorney / moral adjudicator behavior. I'm proposing a conversation about two questions. 1) Do our media fail to give a fair account of racial crime differences? 2) If so, is this healthy? Please feel free to join in if you care to take part.

Luke -- I'm eager to find out too. Not knowing all the facts at the outset certainly didn't keep the 'papers from making a big to-do out of the Duke case, did it?

Jeff -- That's very interesting, tks. Convincing too. A British friend of mine has a related theory. I wonder what you think of it. He says that Brits can be more frank and outspoken because they have a rigid, hierarchical society -- they basically know that nothing's going to make much of a difference anyway, so why not at least have the fun of frankness? Where Americans, living in a relatively free-form society where anything might happen, watch their words and make nice. Anything to that, do you think?

P. Marie -- "Strange Fruit" was a looong time ago. I can't quite make out what you're saying though. The media are right to cover up (or at least to look the other way about) high black rates of involvement in violent crime? Is that it? Not eager to argue, just genuinely curious about your take on all this.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 25, 2007 3:33 PM



Michael - yes I agree with you on immigration. To an extent it is a conspiracy by the high-IQ people who dominate politics & the media against low-IQ individuals, who are unable to articulate themselves and organize themselves like the journalists can. They really do abuse the gifts given them.

Posted by: adrian on April 25, 2007 5:53 PM



Since I live in Knoxville, I can give a bit of local perspective to that crime. It was on the front pages of the newspaper until the suspects were apprehended, but it has fallen to the back pages since then. When the trial rolls around, I suppose it will make a brief comeback as headline news. It did shock everyone with its brutality, but they were able to apprehend the suspects so quickly that it did not develop into something beyond shock.

It doesn't surprise me that it happened in East Knoxville, that is the high crime, high poverty area of Knoxville. The last time we had a crime this bad was about fifteen years ago, also in East Knoxville, and it was a white serial killer named Thomas Huskey.

Race relations are not too bad around here, although I am sure that depends on your perspective. The main problem I am aware of in the local black community is the extent to which it has been corrupted by drugs. Whites are often involved as well, especially as customers, but it does not seem nearly so connected to crime as it is in the black community.

Posted by: Step2 on April 25, 2007 6:08 PM



Let me rephrase that - it does not seem nearly so connected to violent crime.

Posted by: Step2 on April 25, 2007 6:13 PM



Michael, dear as you are, I think you have a major lack of what we used to call at seminary "gravitas." It's all a big French movie to you, it seems, and minorities are just unreasonable to want anything you don't want. It's fun to flirt with the ideas of mutilation, degradation, sexual perversion and so on -- but to some people they are not ideas. They are realities. Lynch mobs were NOT a long time ago and to the people concerned they never will be. Are you stil curious? Talk to some black folks.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on April 25, 2007 6:49 PM



Mary writes: "Are you forgetting the man who not so long ago was dragged behind a pickup until he was in pieces?"

Are you forgetting that the white man who committed that crime was himself the victim of a brutal gang rape perpetrated by blacks while he was in prison on another charge shortly before that incident? You probably did not know that. That doesn't condone his crime, but it does explain his rage. However, you'll have to really dig deep to get to that information, as the MSM totally ignored that vital piece of information in their reportage. Imagine that scenario reversed. Do you think the black murderer would have gotten the death penalty? Do you think the New York Times would have recalled his being raped by a gang of whites? The stories that we hear today make it seem as though this strange racist white guy simply decided for NO REASON AT ALL to go out and drag a black man behind a pickup truck. But he had a motive...revenge directed at the first black person he came across once he got out of jail. Insanity? The fact of the matter is that blacks transfer their myriad and pathological hatreds toward whites into vicious assaults at the rate of 500 murders per year on average. Did you forget the Witchita massacre? That one was even worse than the Knoxville incident. Most Americans are not inclined to prejudice toward blacks because of skin color. They are prejudicial out of a sense of caution. Facts are stubborn things.

Posted by: Bob Grier on April 25, 2007 8:45 PM



"they have a rigid, hierarchical society -- ...Where Americans, living in a relatively free-form society..": he must be teasing you. It's more nearly the other way round.

Posted by: dearieme on April 25, 2007 9:55 PM



I'm kind of sick of hearing about the low black IQ, bogus high testosterone theory. The strongest men in the world are routinely white men (if you doubt it, look at the world"s strongest man competitions, world champ weightlifters, MMA, boxing, etc. Lots of incredibly strong, tough white men). I can't understand how Europeans conquered the world by being pansies. I don't see the retarded population out doing this, so it can't just be low IQ. It is a lack of morality and a giving in to impulse that must be genetic somehow. It runs all across the board, from self-imposed health problems, to drug use, to domestic problems of all kinds, to abandonment of family, etc. I don't know what exactly it is, but it is there and it is real. And our media will do anything possible to hide it and make excuses for it.

Posted by: BIOH on April 25, 2007 10:10 PM



P. Mary -- Certainly no one's ever accused me of excessive gravitas. Sorry to hear, though, that you don't allow yourself to explore fantasy in the context of art experiences. There goes not just erotica and nunsploitation, but murder mysteries and romantic comedy too. But what has any of this got to do with 1) whether the establishment press is ignoring or suppressing interesting information about race and crime, and 2) whether this is a healthy state of affairs?

Dearieme -- I have *much* to learn, I'm sure.

Posted by: Michael Blowhard on April 25, 2007 11:30 PM



The era of lynch mobs ended over over two generations ago. The US was an entirely different place during the era of lynching. Even the Emmett Till killing in 1955 was not a lynching as such acts are normally conceived in the popular imagination. There were no mobs or a public spectacle-it was a murder carried out secretly in the dark of night by a small group of men. What gave it some of the flavor of a lynching was the scandalous acquittal of the perpetrators.

On blacks and testosterone:
http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/mol-evol/1996-November/005009.html
(...)
"This report gives the results of assays of circulating steroid hormone
levels in white and black college students in Los Angeles, CA. Mean
testosterone levels in blacks were 19% higher than whites, and free
testosterone levels were 21% higher. Both these differences were
statistically significant. Adjustment by analysis of covariance for time of
sampling, age, weight, alcohol use, cigarette smoking, and use of
prescription drugs somewhat reduced the differences. After these
adjustments were made, blacks had a 15% higher testosterone level and
a 13% higher free testosterone level." (Journal of the National Cancer
Institute 1986; 76: 45).


Posted by: expat on April 26, 2007 12:20 AM



The media is/are unable to discuss racial issues because they worship the goddess Diversity. Diversity has no interest in the truth -- it's a rainbow with a pot of tyranny waiting at the end of it.

The media in my area often will not give the race of criminals even though such information would be advantageous in catching the thugs. During this Duke episode, about 2 months ago, several black males gang raped and attempted to kidnap some white college girls -- the kidnapping failed. Now, one would think the privleged status of these men would be examined. Yes, privleged, thinking that other people are toys to be taken and tortured certainly qualifies. One would, at least, think that a media that was at the time so happy to bring up Duke would have to give such a story play. They did not. The men were caught. The story became "be cautious, lock your doors."

However, if a minority college student reads something scrawled on a stall in the restroom. It is probably good for at least three stories on the climate of hate -- possibly more if some race hustler takes it up.

I actually remember a few years ago reading several articles on how there were too many white guys on "Who Wants to be a Millionaire?" That is what passes for a discussion of race in the media. What a joke.

It seems increasingly people are not willing to kill the trees to read the lies and half-truths. Yet, the media will go down with the diversity ship.
sN

Posted by: sN on April 26, 2007 4:37 AM



Michael -- "A British friend of mine has a related theory. I wonder what you think of it. He says that Brits can be more frank and outspoken because they have a rigid, hierarchical society -- they basically know that nothing's going to make much of a difference anyway, so why not at least have the fun of frankness?"

I'll have to think about that for a bit, to be honest. I visited the States for the first time last October and was surprised at the pretty frank TV reporting/correlating of increased crime and Mexican immigration. That would never happen on the polite BBC. I also noticed how polite and friendly Americans were, which I concluded may have something to do with your cultural avoidance of grasping thorny topics.

I note that you have some sympathy for the more honest 'tough love' stance vis a vis lagging minorities with social pathologies. It's worth remembering that American blacks made faster gains relative to whites (in prosperity, health, avoidance of crime and suchlike desiderata) in the half century before the civil rights, handouts and desegregation era. It's also worthy to note that Strange Fruit didn't happen in Europe, yet, the same pattern of low academic achievement and criminal behaviour amongst Afro-Caribbean males exists here.


BIOH - "I'm kind of sick of hearing about the low black IQ, bogus high testosterone theory. The strongest men in the world are routinely white men I don't see the retarded population out doing this, so it can't just be low IQ excuses for it."

Genes influence height, skin colour, bone structure, hair thickness, athleticism, but for some reason not intellect? The perfect PC-ite has to maintain, a priori, that the brain is unaffected by the same pressures as the body, and that evolution applies only from feet to neck. In this respect those who denounce Creationism and Intelligent Design are at one with them in safeguarding an immaterialist concept of mind, floating free like the soul from vulgar physical appurtenances. This is the point where Xtian fundies and 'progressive' extremies of fatuity join hands.

BIOH - And our media will do anything possible to hide it and make excuses for it.

The media is only interested in making money. The clamour for scapegoating arises from the 'soft' social sciences, from political activists disguised as lecturers. The truth is that most of the world is race-realist by instinct, outlook and policy, or by bitter experience-- except for cocooned liberals in North America. They have not succeeded in suppressing research, only in making the results difficult to disseminate. The bridling/blindfolding we encounter amongst their minor intelligentsia, with their personal experience of "a bright black kid I once knew at school", is a tribute to their success hitherto, but the cat is beginning to scratch its way out of the bag, as their 'every man a king' liberal line has floppadie-dopped into disillusion now that blacks themselves realise they can't grab the brass ring after all. They don't even have exclusive whining rights any longer, now that there is a later arriving and overtaking Hispanic minority to jostle them for the Honky's bounty.

Posted by: Jeff on April 26, 2007 10:24 AM



"Sorry to hear, though, that you don't allow yourself to explore fantasy in the context of art experiences. There goes not just erotica and nunsploitation, but murder mysteries and romantic comedy too."

Well, there you are. You're talking about fantasy and "art experiences." I'm talking about real life, my friends and neighbors here and now. The former student whose throat was slashed by his wife's lover, the former student who was beaten to death for "mouthing off," so smashed that her body wouldn't hold the embalming fluid.

But to address your concern about my fantasy life, I liked "Wire in the Blood," the stylish BBC mystery, enough to read some of Val McDairmid's books from which the TV plots are drawn. When I got to the one about the perverted lesbian cop who was paying a moron to kidnap women and truss them on a bed with a videotape pointed at their crotches, then violate them with a razor-embedded dildo so the cop could watch the tape of them slowly bleeding to death -- well, I thought that was a bit much. Instead of giving the book to the library, my usual practice, I put it in the garbage.

Though Robson Green's version of this plot-line will probably be quite different (usually the screen-writer improves them a lot) I've switched to "Inspector Alleyn" BBC mysteries -- MUCH nicer. More than blue lights and smoke.

Again, I'd say you're blocking out realities, Michael, and playing with titillating ideas while pretending to be keeping the conversation "civilized." A media trick.

Prairie Mary

Posted by: Mary Scriver on April 26, 2007 11:03 AM



I guess I don't see much point in talking about how sensational headlines get written. You cited two crimes and a statistic. One of the crimes looks at least partly unsourced, and the statistic is insignificant in light of a population that's 1/8 black, and disingenuous at best in light of correlations between poverty and violence. I hope my repeating this doesn't strike you as uncivil.
A possible answer to the main question you're asking (why don't people talk about crime by blacks against whites?) is that it's counterproductive to scold, and that even well intentioned criticism from "outside" makes people defensive. I certainly don't spend much time listening to, say, Al Sharpton, who always seems ready to believe the worst on shaky evidence. In even the recent past, such criticism from whites directed to blacks has been tinged with ugly assumptions about blacks as a group, and supported treating blacks badly as a group. Might this past history make some reasonable people avoid the topics you're raising, especially in an impersonal public forum? Most racism, directed in any direction, is relatively minor-- a shout from a passing car, or a hiring decision; focusing on the sensational is, in my opinion, a symbolic distraction.
I had hoped that bringing up David Simon as an example of intelligent treatment of problems whose causes include race and poverty might go somewhere. Have you read The Corner or seen any of his television shows? Or what about TC Boyle-- what did you think of Tortilla Curtain?

Posted by: lw on April 26, 2007 5:09 PM



I have lived long, and I well remember the days when assaults by white people on those of color didn't merit reportage in any press. A person of color might be raped or killed or tortured or tormented, and the fact went virtually unremarked.

Today it is the reverse. The great cultural shifts of the 60s and 70s, and the beginning of awareness of the suffering of people of other races, changed everything. The press dwells obsessively with any alleged assault by a white person on anyone of color, as it did in the Duke case, but remains largely silent or at least subdued when reporting violence by people of color against whites.

So there has been a complete flipflop. It was inevitable, I imagine. For generations, blacks suffered in utter silence. The newsgathering organizations didn't bother to record their grief. Now, with the focus reversed, and newsgathering organizations eager to publish any story of white abuse of blacks, a lot of whites who lack historical perspective are quite angry and shouting foul. But they don't know or care about the past. For every Duke case, there were a thousand unreported cases of violence visited upon a suffering people from the the first arrival of slaves to the present.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 26, 2007 8:57 PM



What a load. Blacks have been attacking whites ever since the end of the Civil War. A lot of the lynchings in the south were against blacks who actually did commit crimes and were guilty. There is absolutely no reason to believe that blacks were any less racist and prone to violence and rape then than they are now. None.

Is that too bold a statement? Its true. Does it cause too much cognitive dissonance? It shouldn't. Lynchings of blacks and whites happened all over the US before the Federal and state governments got huge and powerful. Crimes were handled locally, and punishmennts were severe. Were there abuses? You bet. Was the citzenry right most of the time? You bet. The local people knew who committed the crime. The idea that all those blacks were innocent is propaganda and a lie. The southerners warned everybody about what is going on now over 50 years ago. They were shouted down as racists, and they have been proven right.

What were there, about 3000-4000 lynchings in a hundred year span? Do you know how many whites are killed by blacks every year? At least a thousand, maybe as many as 1500-2000 per year. Add that up over the last 40 years, and tell me which number is bigger. Every single one of the white victims now are innocent too, as opposed to the lynchings of old. Add in about 20,000 rapes a year for the past 35-40 years too, and tell me what the number is. Tell me about all the welfare fraud, affirmative action shakedown rackets, bogus lawsuits, insane criminal courts, prison, and law enforcement costs, etc. Trillions. And is it any better now than then? Nope. Maybe for blacks, but certainly not for the rest of us. The rest of us are a lot worse off. Of course, in the popular analysis, that is strangely never brought up. No focus on how the other 70% (90% then) have fared since then.

If someone told you that 40-80,000 innocent people had been murdered, and almost a million women were raped in some country halfway around the world, my, how the handkerchiefs would come out! Indignant cries of "Justice, justice!" would ring from your lips. But not for here, in your own country, for your own people, because its oh-so-hip to hate on whites. How such a large number of otherwise intelligent people have been trained to hate and ignore the pain, injustice to, and suffering of their own people is simply amazing. If the communist propagandists of the former Soviet Union had been as skillful as their western counterparts, the Soviet Union would still be in business today. Thank God for the internet, while it still lasts. It is the only outlet of truth we have.

Posted by: BIOH on April 26, 2007 10:41 PM



BIOH for president!!!!! That was about as good as it gets.

Posted by: Bob Grier on April 27, 2007 12:27 AM



By the way, BIOH, did you know that one fourth of all lynch victims in the south were WHITE? Not many people realize that. So the actual number of black persons lynched is really only about 3,200 or so for the entire post civil war period. If you ask some young person with their heads full of liberal mush how many blacks were lynched, they'll probabaly tell you some outrageous figure like 100 thousand.

Posted by: Bob Grier on April 27, 2007 12:39 AM



I find a few recent comments troubling. One person dismisses hiring decisions as minor in the same league as shouting insults from cars. If you work your entire life toward teaching and find that colleges would rather not hire a young white male -- I would not call that minor.

Dropping standards for firefighters and police so as to be able to hire more minorities is not minor.

One voice seems to feel we whites are getting some sort of historical payback. It is quite an argument to hold whites responsible for things done in the past or even before they were born while not holding blacks responsible for their current behavior. It isn't exactly the legal system that European whites worked hundreds of years on, but it does have its practitioners in Rwanda and other fun spots around the globe. In other words, it is a view that is both racist and deadly.

The fact is the mainstream media can't cover race. And --this just in -- they will go out of business before they try to cover it truthfully. It would take a page to describe the media culture, but being labeled racist --even by groups that throw that label around like confetti at a ticker-tape parade -- is the worst possible scenario for these folks -- or maybe it ties with child molesting?

The problem is race is the big issue, and it will be getting bigger with the Mexican invasion and its resulting problems. Big problems are on the way. And since the media and corporations are ready to sing in the chorus of lies, we white people could be in trouble. I understand what has been done to blacks in the past. But, I dont think the new tyranny is going to come goose stepping up in Nazi uniforms or Klan sheets. The new tyranny will come from the race hustlers. It is starting with the hate laws in Great Britain and Canada (which we don't read about here). We will soon get the same. Then, it will be on to the next steps.

I realize plenty of lunatics will want to sign on to my argument. But, I'm not here to cultivate hate. I just want to know exactly what rules we are all going to play by? I see the media and more establishing the race game. Do have the decency to spell out the rules.
sN

Posted by: sN on April 27, 2007 4:15 AM



It is a pity and a scandal that this blog should publish contributors whose hearts are chilled against their colored neighbors and compatriots. These people do not even fathom blacks as humans, with their own sorrows and joys and struggles and hopes and faith in God. These people, such as BIOH and Grier, carefully ignore three centuries of violence by whites against blacks, mostly done by masters inseminating powerless black girls, until today virtually all American black people have a large amount of white genetic material. These people entertain paranoid fantasies that "they" will soon shut down the internet to suppress "truth" as they define it. It is time for all the operators of this blog, every one of them, to disown these cold-souled people who are using this blog for their own bleak purposes, to sow ill-will and fear.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 27, 2007 7:48 AM



Wheeler, you would be better advised to spend your time in the pulpit of a church, because what you are ranting about is sheer religious ecstasy completely divorced from reality.

Posted by: Bob Grier on April 27, 2007 9:25 AM




Mr Wheeler,
I see Lou Dobbs labeled a racist and a hatemongerer for discussing immigration and other touchy issues. Am I to believe that the people calling him this will just go away as they achieve more power?

The people who built this country said an educated population is necessary for our system to work. Yet, the powers that be are importing massive numbers of folks who drop out of school. Read the stats from the Heritage Foundation on this site to see what that means to us financially. Then, use a bit of imagination to figure out what that means politically and socially.

It seems any discussion of such issues will be called racist. So, am I just suppose to be happy that my country's language and history are going to be replaced? I am just suppose to ignore the whole thing so you won't call me a name?

I think we need a national discussion about what the rules of this country are going to be -- for all of us. If minorities are going to be given special privleges under the names of quotas or diversity, let us spell that out now, instead of it being a hidden process.

If the the men who gang raped some girls where I live are not to be held to the same standards as three guys from Duke tell me why? Let us discuss the issue.

There is plenty of hate out there on all sides. That is why we need a system that is fair and treats people as individuals. I am certain that we are going in the other direction. I am not certain how to put a happy face :} on that for you.
sN


Posted by: sN on April 27, 2007 12:57 PM



I often listen to High Standards, on satellite radio, a channel devoted to musical standards, or "the great American songbook." How often I hear Ella Fitzgerald, or Louis Armstrong, or Duke Ellington, whose music is deeply embedded in this land, and is unsurpassed. I grew up to the music of Nat King Cole. This nation would be a poor place indeed without the jazz and blues and ballads these people gave to us.

I have a kinoscope of 1950s Sinatra TV shows, in which he sings duets with Ella, and Louis, that are a joy to watch. I recollect that one of Frank Sinatra's greatest songs, The House I Live In, so offended the politicos that he was hauled before the House Un-american Activities Committee. That song is the most glowing expression of a welcoming land, the true city on the hill, that I have ever heard. Which is maybe why the southern chairmen of HUAC loathed it, and loathed Sinatra, whose songs stamped the 20th century.

I am so sorry that some of my critics have constituted themselves a modern House Un-American Activities Committee, and in the process, are draining American life of its richness, diversity, and cultural riches.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 27, 2007 2:15 PM



"I am so sorry that some of my critics have constituted themselves a modern House Un-American Activities Committee, and in the process, are draining American life of its richness, diversity, and cultural riches."

Orwellian double-speak for "when we have proper hate speech laws, you cretans will be thrown into prison."

Posted by: Eagle on April 27, 2007 3:58 PM



Of course, no mention of the white people so involved with the developments of gospel, jazz and blues. Truly a liberal broken record.

Hey, ain't it great that now there is an Un-Multicultural Activites Committee in the media to fire and libel those who exercise incorrect free speech? No words on violation of the first amendment there, no outrage. Typical.

Did it ever occur to anybody that black women willingly slept with white men because they were the most powerful, highest status men on the plantation? You know, like women sleep with their bosses now? Its kind of a natural thing. Did that ever occur to anybody? Or are some of the other posters still dishing out the propaganda they learned in the sixties? I noticed that all the rapes and murders of whites by blacks was entirely skipped over in favor of the standard propaganda line and a bit-o-nostalgia. Does their pain and suffering touch you at all? Nope. How about all the whites gypped by affrimative action? Nope. You know why--because Mr. Wheeler's generation is basically unaffected by affirmative action, that's why! It been mostly late Baby Boomers, Gen X and Gen Y. The old guys never had to deal with it much. Kind of hard to take the detached viewpoint seriously once you realize that.

In case you hadn't noticed it Mr. Wheeler, the black's contributions to the arts took a steep qualitative drop after the 1960's. Gone are the days of blacks emulating whites. Now we have the black ghetto being popularized, with all its dysfunction and degradation. Its the only true, authentic black culture, don't you know! Its been a one-way slide down. You must not have noticed, living in the fifties and sixties as you do. You must have missed the dumbing down of the schools, and the pornification of our culture by the same crowd of liberals that is celebrating negro ghetto life. What richness! What diversity!

The last point is really the most telling. I've long noticed that artsy types can rationalize almost anything if it makes them feel good. I would trade every great peice of black music ever made to bring back the lives of all the white people who have been murdered, all those who have been attacked and wronged, all those who have been gypped, and the trillions of dollars wasted on these unproductive, ungrateful, and uncivilized people. No production of art is worth even one life, much less many tens of thousands.

That's a big point. You live in your bubble--a comfortable little bubble of doing what you like, pulling up the entertainment that you like, living in a teeny-tiny almost all-white town without any of the problems so many of us have to deal with every day. None of the black and mexican crime, none of the black and mexican racist politics, few of the outrageous taxes we have to pay to give govenment jobs to worthless blacks and mexicans who literally sit around and do nothing all day. You've never had to deal with an incompetent black quota hire where you have to correct EVERYTHING that person does, EVERYTHING! Your interactions with blacks are limted to putting on a Nat King Cole record. I find it hard to take you seriously at all.

I tell you what. Why do you live in a place with so little black cultural diversity? You should come to the city I live near, Chicago, and move into an all-black neighborhood/ghetto. And please, don't hide away in your house when you get there! Get out and make friends! Make sure everybody there sees you and knows you just moved in! Live there for a good long stretch, maybe five or ten years. Then tell us how enriching it all was for you, and how blacks are such wonderful people. Then I'll take you seriously.

Until then, I'll take the word of all those who really have lived in neighborhoods ruined by blacks, and all the people who have been victimized by them, and cheated by their government in favor for blacks, while you continue to live in the middle of nowhere, far from the hell you advocate for the rest of us.

Posted by: BIOH on April 27, 2007 4:49 PM



From Southern Poverty Law Center:
Crime is intimately related to poverty. In fact, when multivariate statistical methods such as regression analysis are used, study after study has shown that race has little, if any, predictive power. When more sophisticated methodology is employed, socioeconomic factors including poverty, education, social status and urban residence account far better for criminal behavior than race. Above all, income counts.

Regarding interracial crime:
Data show that 73 percent of white violent crime victims were attacked by whites, and 80 percent of black victims were targeted by blacks. This pattern is even clearer in the category of murder. According to a 1997 government report, 94 percent of black murder victims, as well as 85 percent of white murder victims, were slain by members of their own race.

Just to reiterate: Victims of violent crime are much more likely to be attacked by members of the same race. Now, can we talk about poverty and crime or is that taboo?

Posted by: Step2 on April 27, 2007 4:54 PM



This has been a valuable experience for me. I'm an old man, and rarely have the chance to discuss serious issues seriously. There lived in my neighborhood for some years a black man who was an artist as well as an oriental rug dealer. He had mastered the rug business while his parents were State Department cultural attaches at a Near East embassy.

Michael, his name was, painted the most superb trout of any artist I know, and my wife and I received some of that art from him at the time of our late-in-life marriage. We bought several of his oriental rugs. Michael's family had lived some while in Greenwich Village, and were close to James Baldwin. A few years ago, Michael moved east, and our neighborhood is less rich and more impoverished because of his departure. He brought richness and grace to our life, as so many of his people bring richness and grace to America.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 27, 2007 5:14 PM



Quoting Southern Poverty Law Center about race is like quoting PeTA about steak.

Katrina was the watershed (pardon me) event in terms of how I view the link between poverty and race. Just compare how poor whites behaved during the lawless period, and how the blacks behaved.

Posted by: PA on April 27, 2007 5:56 PM



As a helpful reminder - "Please, let's agree to keep the discussion civil and respectful."

Anyone who thinks liberals celebrate the slow rot of poverty, white trailer parks or black ghettos, has no idea what liberalism is. BIOH had to deal with an incompetent quota hire, so what? I take it he has never seen an incompetent white worker, not ever. On the minuscule chance he did, they were surely fired on the spot, just like all the other "unproductive, ungrateful, and uncivilized" people should be.

If PA has any facts that refute those statements from SPLC, I am willing to take a look at them.

Posted by: Step2 on April 27, 2007 7:04 PM



I can scarcely get through a day without rejoicing in the cosmopolitan life here. On Wednesdays friends and I enjoy a Mexican lunch. I have the best chili rellenos I have ever tasted anywhere. The family that runs the restaurant belong to an apostolic church, and are lovely neighbors in our community. But it is not just food that enriches me, but Mexican art and architecture, Mexican clothing design, Mexican spiritual values.

We have two Chinese places as well, serving rich and delicious meals. Their owners are great assets in my town.

We have many Indians of various tribes here, living quietly, adding their unique culture to the richness of my own life. I enjoy looking at Crow Indian obituaries in the paper, because they offer long and detailed accounts of the kin and clan and achievements of the deceased, and tell me of the web of love and life among the Crows. Some of the older Crows fought in World War Two, or the Korean War, where their warrior skills were greatly appreciated. They contributed to America, and sacrificed for America, and contributed to a cultural heritage I enjoy. I am glad that the United States is a welcoming and diverse land, because no man is an island.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 27, 2007 10:44 PM



Step2,

Of course crime and poverty are related. Stupidity and laziness are also correlated with poverty, but that's not mentioned much. I wonder why? Many poor people have no valuable skills to sell to anybody or are lazy and don't want to work. Crime is an easy way to get cash, as opposed to having to arduously increase their skill levels and deal with a low wage job appropriate to their limited skill set. Of course, lazy people need to commit crimes to get money because they don't want to work at all. I used to actually try to help people get out ot the ghetto many years ago, so I know exactly why they are there. Thanks for the liberal propaganda though. I guess any view that tells the truth and doesn't fall for the standard line of leftist lies is "uncivil". Another attempt at censorship.

Here's some statistics for you too, buddy. Of all the violent crime committed by blacks, 43% is committed against whites. Of all violent crime committed by whites, only 3% is committed against blacks. Those damn white racists! Since most violent crime is local, and involves domestic violence as well, you can see that blacks have to leave their neighborhoods to hunt for white victims. Whites don't do the reverse. Remember, this is violent crime, not just robbery. Sorry buddy, not buying that line either. Three or four percent (young black males) of the population commits 50 % of the crime, and almost half of it is interracial. More smoke.

Oh, and the quota babies who are dolts? There's a big difference in an incompetent white who is allowed to stay on the job, as opposed to an incompetent black. Wanna guess what it is? In the case of the white workers, its actually the business itself that gets to decide whether to fire or not. If a lawsuit is threatened, there's a great chance that the plaintiff will lose if he has no case. For black dolts though, the government forces the companies to hire, and their ungrounded lawsuits are far more likely to be settled in their favor even if they are dolts, which is most of the time. Slight difference, being forced to hire black dolts by the government in violation of the law and under the threat of bogus lawsuits.

Socialists don't love poverty. They love tearing things apart to force their ridiculous ideas on everybody else. Their policies have resulted in impoverishing and destroying every country they have beeen tried in, including here. They reward failure, pay people not to work, attack the successful, and make excuses for and try to prop up the unsuccessful. They tolerate every vice, tear down religious, family, and traditional life, and attack individual speech rights and property rights. What a nice bunch, eh?

Mr. Wheeler, you live in LIvingston Montana, correct? Livingston is 95% white, 2% mexican, and 3% "other", which I bet includes a fair number of american indians. Almost no blacks, right?

In what way could you possibly understand this racial situation the rest of the country deal with if your town and area are so completely unrepresentative? No black slums, no mexican slums (30% of the population right there), the indians live on a reservation(!), few if any racial frictions--you live in a dream land. That's why so many people are moving to Montana--to get away from the blacks and mexicans. They will just follow, though, and ruin your neck of the woods too if you live long enough to see it. Half of all blacks and mexicans drop out of high school. No black or mexican gangs out there in Livingston? You're missing out on all that diversity!

My advice to culture lovers is to get a passport. Why limit yourself to the limited cultural experiences of Livingston Montana, or wherever Step 2 lives? You could see the ENTIRE WORLD! There's no need to stay here and ruin America either. Think of all the ethnic restaurants around the ENTIRE WORLD! Think of all the chinese restaurants in China! What selection! I couldn't give less of a damn what kind of food people like to eat for lunch. Don't ruin my country because you are bored. And it is my country--I speak for the vast majority that you hate, but who agree with me, and whose actions and opinions are there for everyone to see.

If you like obituaries, you should read all the white ones too, especially the ones who are killed off young by blacks and mexicans. I don't understand your point, other than to rationalize discrimination against your own kind. Weird and very unnatural. Especially living in a 95% white town. Gets a little boring there huh? No man is an island? What are you talking about? We have hundreds of millions of people here. And you decided a long time ago to move away from most of them.

If american indians are so wonderful, how come they won't let white people, mexicans, and blacks settle on their reservations? How come the mexicans and blacks are fighting gang wars all across america to ethnically cleanse one another from their neighborhoods? If all these people believe in fairness and justice, then why do they support discrimination against whites? Why do you?

Give away your own money and opportunites, and put your own families and rear ends at risk. Put your money where your mouth is. Move in with your friends the blacks and mexicans, if whites are so evil and boring. Hell, move anywhere else in the world if we are so bad. Most countries are rich and diverse, because no matter what the skin color, people are naturally diverse. What a slander, that we are interchangeable clones! What disrespect! You just want a superficial diversity, one you can access easily and remove yourself from easily. You don't want to really get close at all, and where you live proves it. Its all just entertainment to you. You can put your Nat King Cole CD on any time you want. How convenient! The rest of us have to deal with the problems, not living out in the middle of nowhere. The rest of us would like the same priveledges you have, especially since the vast majority of us are against all this. But that would be too democratic, wouldn't it?

Posted by: BIOH on April 28, 2007 2:01 AM



Mr. Wheeler,

You celebrate the "vibrant" qualities of other people's positive, affirmative cultures. And that's great.

But what about your culture, as a white American man? Who are you, other than a consumer of other cultures?

Posted by: PA on April 28, 2007 5:58 AM



I sign my name, and I've noticed that my critics don't for the most part. Anonymous opinions carry no weight, you know. Someone is hiding behind an acronym or pseudonym, and all that sound and fury comes to naught. Come visit me, and I will argue that a person who has a charitable view of others can made the world a better place, while those who don't will only hurt themselves. I would find my life greatly darkened if I permitted the bitterness to fester in me. Who are you, you bitter people marching through a bitter life to a bitter death?

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 28, 2007 8:23 AM



Richard,

I must confess I find your descriptions of your 'mutlicultural' life extremely appealing. And I must say, an America such as you describe is much more the kind of country I would prefer (and have preferred throughout my life) to live in. When I read your next to last post, I couldn't help thinking:

This is the appeal, the real true appeal, of the multicultural vision. This is what people mean when they talk about 'celebrating diversity'. This is what it is be civilized.

And yet, the immigration policies America is pursuing will not only not enable that civilized vision to be realized, it will destroy it utterly. I believe your vision of the good life, and the place of immigrants in that life, is more in tune with my own views, and in your vision's tone and feel and openness to experience, more in tune with the general tenor of this blog (sorry to speak for you, Michael, if you're reading this). I simply believe that an immigration policy deliberately designed to produce that good life would be nothing like the current morass.

My question is, "What would an immigration policy designed to make real this vision of the good life be like?"

Posted by: PatrickH on April 28, 2007 10:59 AM



Mr Wheeler retreats into ad hominem. That means he has no argument.

Posted by: expat on April 28, 2007 11:59 AM



It is time to conclude with Abraham Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address. Let us listen to the man who gave blacks liberty and a homeland:

With malice toward none, with charity toward all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in...

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 28, 2007 12:07 PM



It should be shocking that any presumably informed takes the SPLC seriously. But then the US is a country where Al Sharpton is a powerful public figure.

The SPLC is a neo-McCarthyite outfit that trades continually in smear and guilt-by-association. Its sleazines has been exposed time and time agin by writers from across the political spectrum: from Marxist Alexander Cockburn to numerous conservatives and libertarians. Some examples below:
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a63a6d1039e.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a3e5cb925c4.htm

http://www.takimag.com/blogs/article/the_southern_poverty_smearbund/

http://web.archive.org/web/20011201134532/http://www.rockfordinstitute.org/1197Francis.htm

http://www.antiwar.com/justin/j062399.html

Posted by: expat on April 28, 2007 12:41 PM



Mr. Wheeler - As another commenter who does not use a pseudonym and whose views are more liberal/progressive/modernist/etc. than many who contribute on this site, I greatly enjoy being able to interact with those who hold opinions different than my own, civilly and respectfully, that's why I generally like this site. I am challenged by reading points of view that require me to think about and make the case for my own positions. While I cannot say I've changed my thinking very much, I have read things that made me think more deeply about different takes on a variety of topics. Most who comment here are able to discuss something without slipping into rants or personal attacks.

Still, there are a handful who spew venom and often personally attack anyone who does not agree with their worldview. These individuals often seem outraged by what they present as the loss of "their" country and culture. They have a long list of villains (academia, the media, immigrants, blacks, etc.) that they blame for whatever ills affect them.

For a year I was a facilitator with a local group that held monthly discussions on hot button topics. The idea was to get individuals from the community to talk with one another in a lightly structured situation that allowed everyone to express themselves. At its best, there were moments when individuals with dramatically divergent views would get the chance to both listen and speak with each other. Sometimes it was the only time they'd ever discussed a given issue with someone holding views so very different from their own. (For example, it was fascinating the night a militant lesbian and born again guy were part of my group while gay marriage was discussed.) In my role as facilitator I sometimes (rarely) needed to step in and tell someone to stop attacking another person and make their point without personal animus.

There are uncharitable moments when I image Michael Blowhard chuckling evilly to himself as he writes things like, "Please, let's agree to keep the discussion civil and respectful. Let's make it the discussion's starting point that we mean everyone well." I say that because when he begins by offering a horrific crime by black perps with white victims as a starting point for a thread, he must know that it will result in a heated exchange wherein certain regulars can be expected to be uncivil and disrespectful. It sometimes seems as if being civil and respectful is itself attacked for being too "politically correct." It would make discussions about difficult topics here more productive if those who regularly use personal attacks as a tactic were more frequently called on their uncivil and disrespectful behavior.

Having said this, I look forward to being ridiculed and savaged (again) by BIOH and others (at least Bob Grier is using his name).

Posted by: Chris White on April 28, 2007 1:38 PM



What is uncivil is writing in CAPITAL LETTERS and EXCLAMATION POINTS!!! Of course, this just makes me look calm and reasonable by comparison, so keep up the great work.

For that matter, whenever someone suggests that those who disagree with them should leave the country, the debate is over. My right to live here, to help support a diverse community, and to influence political decisions is no less than any other citizen's, and anyone who believes otherwise is profoundly mistaken.

For what it's worth, I support much stricter controls on legal immigration and much greater penalties and enforcement against illegal immigration. I also support a very strong law enforcement presence in blighted communities. Not that BIOH would have figured any of that out, since he is so quick to condemn everyone on his impressive list of imaginary enemies.

Posted by: Step2 on April 28, 2007 4:46 PM



Richard S. Wheeler, I must say that I am disappointed in your absolute refusal to engage with opinions contradictory to your flowers-and-puppydogs vision of happy fluffy multicultural joy, and your final retreat into "you are anonymous, so nah nah!"

Deal with the arguments that have been presented to you.

Posted by: Bleh Blehkins on April 28, 2007 7:13 PM



If poverty were truly the root of violent crime, then white rural America would be a hotbed of crime and violence. It's not. It is an unfortunate truth that young black men commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

That is also why they are a disproportinate number on death row.

What crimes draw the death penalty? Well, espionage and premeditated murder like serial killers for starters - both relatively rare and for serial killers and spies mostly white. Then also committing murder while committing another crime like rape, robbery, burglery, drug dealing, etc. Street crime that involves a murder is largely a black phenomenon. Sad but true and it can't be altered as long as we are not allowed by the PC brigade to discuss it.

Doubly sad is the fact that a large number of the great influx of Hispanic immigrants seem to be embracing underclass culture instead of mainstream culture.

Posted by: D Flinchum on April 28, 2007 7:30 PM



I didn't personally attack anybody. I simply pointed out an obvious dichotomy. As far as leaving the country, that was so that the culture mavens could experience the entire panoply of cultures rather than the limited set here. In their view, 3 billion people are one plane ticket away from becoming american citizens, and that is simply insane. Why not go to the source if it is loved so much? I never said anybody's citizenship should be stripped. Gimme a break! Go visit and come back home, if you're a productive law-abiding citizen. Don't bring them all here.

Posted by: BIOH on April 28, 2007 8:33 PM



The reason many here do not use their real names is because they are vulnerable to attack by liberals who could harm them in their place of business or in their government positions. I know of several people here who are definitely vulnerable because of the work they do. And I understand the frustration of not being able to speak out. It is a telling symptom of the degree of terror inflicted by the leftist media lynch mobs that ordinary people cannot come forward and say in public what they really feel about a whole range of subjects. It's far worse in Europe where they have instituted "hate speech" laws which can be interpreted at the whim of controlling political parties. We're headed there. Traditionalists vote with their feet, and they complain by remaining silent in the face of fierce fanatical leftist smear campaigns. In the past, the whole circus was orchestrated by the crazy left media. Anonymity online is the natural result of this stifling liberal atmosphere in the public arena.

Posted by: Bob Grier on April 28, 2007 10:26 PM



There are, it seems, plenty of people who prefer to feel persecuted. These people construct a whole mental edifice to support their inclination and are continually discovering "proofs" for their notions. They usually begin with a few real circumstances, some of them tragic or painful, but soon their imaginations have expanded these into something wondrous. Thus we learn that "the liberal media" won't let them speak their minds, and that people need pseudonyms to keep from being persecuted by the government or the press or the media or international power brokers, on and on. They live in a sad fantasy world, which would largely dissipate if they were themselves more charitable and could understand the goodwill of so many others. But lacking their own charity, they discover none elsewhere. What a sad and bitter world they inhabit, and how far it is from the real one.

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 29, 2007 12:20 PM




Oh my, so now I live in a sad fantasy world -- if it were only so, I'd simply imagine Scarlett Johansson strolling in to cheer me up.

I have made points throughout my recent posts. On a previous item, I told of a family ( a single mom and her son and daughter). Their Midwest school has become mostly illegal aliens. A couple weeks ago the son announced he no longer wanted to go to school because everyday he is threatened with violence and told that these Mexicans hate white people. You see, Mr Wheeler, they live in a sad real world. Now, perhaps you could go down there and tell this little boy how to block a punch with a charitable attitude. And you could tell us all if you care one bit about this citizen's plight? Or does your charity toward others cancel out this little kid's boyhood?

Some one mentioned that we create the boogeymen of the media, academia and immigrants. Well, sir, we have just seen the media and academia team up to try and destroy the lives of these Duke students. I just saw Chris Matthews respectfully interviewing Al Sharpton. A friend of mine put it best -- Just imagine if Al Sharpton had done the things he has done to YOU. To you. Get it, to YOU? (Do I need to say it again?) Yet, Al stood up on the same platform with the Democratic candidates all smiles and good times.

I have made specific points in my posts and they are not responded to. Have we as a country decided to change the ethnic makeup of our country (where was the discussion?)? Have we decided to add a second language, Spanish, (where, oh, media, was the discussion)? Have we decided to add millions of people to our population (where was the discussion, oh great free press?)? Feel free to use crime and education statistics for the invading group -- I'd love to see how you can put a tuxedo on that turd.

Please, critics make a solid case for the Mexican invasion. Give me the reasons you think the media is doing a good job. Tell me that the kids my company hires, the ones with no idea about anything but pop culture were greatly served by academia in the four years they spent at college.

Of course, you want my name, that piece of information being so vital to what we are discussing. I am not Lou Dobbs ;if I am labeled a racist or a hater, I will find it very hard to find work. And I never falsely accused anyone of rape. I never tried to ruin anyone's career. I never riled a mob to violence. If I had, you would know my name, and you would be voting for one of the people standing on a podium shaking my hand and smiling. You don't need to know my name, but you should no the name of tyranny.
sN

Posted by: sN on April 29, 2007 6:25 PM



I'vd noticed that women have entirely dropped out of the discussion. Could it be that women see little or no threat in a cosmopolitan and welcoming society, and might even welcome it? If so, given the polar differences of view, which gender's perceptions are wrong?

Posted by: Richard S. Wheeler on April 30, 2007 7:53 AM



It’s scary how I find myself rooting for BIOS for several reasons:

1/ He speaks what I hear people saying all the time.
2/ He makes sense, in a nearly hysterical way, of the existence many people experience living in heterogeneous as opposed to homogenous communities . People from all-white or mostly white communities have nothing to lose, for the time being, flinging open the doors of the country to every poor, wretched, hungry person we can pack in.
3/ Wheeler almost sounds like he’s putting us on. I mean, the diverse restaurants, the patois of the myriad voices in the popular country? Come on. Have YOUR daughter go to a school where the diverse student body glamorizes the black gang culture and make constant moves on her.
4/ I visited a relative who recently moved to a suburb of Tucson and they’re fighting a war to keep out the coloreds (all colors) and they’re all crunchy ex-hippie types…

It’s a frightening world out there for parents, not in the same sense as the Hippies not bringing children in an unjust world kind of way, but in a Jesus, where’s the justice?!? kind of way. You just can’t get them away from the crap of popular culture, the best we can do is move to Wheeler’s neighborhood and jack property taxes to the point where no minorities can enter.

What to do...

Posted by: Matt on May 3, 2007 6:25 PM






Post a comment
Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:



Remember your info?