Replies

The blurb says nothing about what brought on the attack, which is a gaping omission. I'm not saying it is justifiable, but my guess would be that it was for a reason that conflicts with the western media narrative here (in other words, the story is selling a lie), and thus had to be left out.

I was born in Detroit and grew up in a mostly black school system before moving to job in heavily white areas. My experience is that below a certain threshhold, minorities are viewed as curiousities and judged on their individual merits rather than out of the prejudice the media focuses on so myopically. Minorities in such cases can succeed very well in their community with little or no prejudice against them. For example I was at a sizable factory with a thousand workers and we got a black plant manager (the top position). This in a rural community with no more than a handful of black residents out of four thousand total. And I never heard a whisper of complaint or negativity about his race. Same for my experience in Wyoming, where blacks are few and far between, and I simply never hear racist comments uttered. It's only when a minority becomes a sizable part of the population that individuals in the minority group become viewed as one of the group rather than as an individual, and prejudice begins to rear its ugly head.

So in this case the lady was there for years, so the neighbors would not have been reacting from blind prejudice anyway. If that was the issue the attack would have happened years ago. Whatever happened is far more likely due to relations between the neighbors and her as an individual. Now, why would the media be so obviously trying to avoid exploring the actual root cause of the attack?