Posted on 09/13/2013 3:24:10 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Last week, while walking through Union Square in Manhattan, 62-year-old Jeffrey Babbitt, a retired train conductor who was the caretaker for his 94-year-old mother, was killed by Lashawn Marten, a black man over 20 years his junior who declared his intention just seconds before he punched Babbitt in the head to hurt the first white person he encountered.
Two days later, a white passenger on a bus passing through Harlem was assaulted by another passenger for being a “cracker.” The 31-year-old assailant struck his victim so hard that, according to the New York Post, “he smashed the bones in his face,” “breaking his nose and eye socket.”
Both the rate and ferocity of black-on-white violence is nothing short of a national scandal. All decent Americans, and certainly all those who claim to care about race relations, should be as attentive to and concerned about this phenomenon as they are attentive to and concerned about anything else.
Not everyone sees it this way. Below are three objections that are commonly stated.
Objection #1: Blacks don’t have a monopoly on violence and whites don’t have a monopoly on being the victims of violence. Violence is part of the human condition. So, why should we attach more importance to this kind of violence than we attach to all sorts of other kinds?
Reply: Of course, what is said here is true. Still, that blacks constitute a small minority of America and yet comprise, overwhelmingly, the majority of perpetrators of interracial crime is, or should be, more than enough to convince the thoughtful that black-on-white violence is a very real problem.
Moreover, it isn’t just the interracial violence here itself that is a grave cause of concern, but the especially savage character that this violence all too often assumes. Just a cursory perusal of any random selection of black-on-white attacks readily reveals the mercilessness that an alarming number of black predators show toward their white prey.
Objection #2: Granted, black-on-white violence is a reality, but it is a reality begotten by a legacy of slavery and Jim Crow. If there are blacks who hate whites, it is because there were first whites who hated blacks. As the title of a 1960s television broadcast on The Nation of Islam put it, black animus toward whites is “the hate that hate produced.”
Reply: As scholars black, white, and other have repeatedly demonstrated, the dysfunction that marks the black underclass today was either non-existent or far less pronounced in years past—i.e. at times not as far removed from slavery and during which racial discrimination against blacks was both more ubiquitous and more overt.
This consideration aside, if the proponents of this objection were made to say aloud the implications of their position, the shame and ridicule that it invites just might force them to abandon it.
According to this line of reasoning, the following victims of black-on-white violence would still be alive and unharmed had it not been for a history of racial oppression:
-Jeffrey Babbitt;
-Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom, a young white couple that had been abducted, repeatedly raped, tortured, and murdered by five blacks;
-Brad Heyka, Jason Befort, Aaron Sander, and Heather Muller, four whites who were robbed, beaten, sexual humiliated, raped, and murdered by two black brothers;
-Kristen Huggins, a 22-year-old college graduate and aspiring artist who was carjacked, sodomized, robbed, and killed by a bullet to her head fired by a black career criminal;
-Antonio Santiago, a 17-month-old baby shot dead in the face by two black thugs;
-Jonathan Foster, a 12-year-old white boy taken from his home and killed by a blowtorch wielding black woman;
-Delbert Benton, an 89-year-old WWII veteran beaten to death by two black teenagers; and
-Fannie Gumbinger, a 99-year-old woman beaten to death by a 20-year-old black man who burglarized her home.
It is with the greatest of ease that to this list, scores of other names could be added. But the point is this: If “the legacy of slavery and discrimination” argument is to be believed, then we are expected to believe that in the absence of this “legacy,” legions of innocent white children, white women, and the elderly who have been brutalized by black thugs would be with us today.
Objection #3: The race of the perpetrators and victims of these horrible crimes is irrelevant.
Reply: If this is true, then so too is race irrelevant while discussing America’s past. After all, if it is slavery that is immoral, then the races of master and slave are immaterial. And if it is immoral to segregate people along the lines of race, then it is irrelevant whether the segregationists are white or non-white.
There is no point mentioning that the Ku Klux Klan consisted of white supremacists who sought to torment blacks. Deserving of condemnation is not white supremacy, but any sort of supremacy, not the tormenting of blacks, but the tormenting of anyone.
But if race is relevant to discussions of American slavery and segregation, then it most certainly is relevant to speak of race in connection with most interracial violence in America at present.
And it most certainly is mandatory that all morally committed people start assigning this issue the priority that it deserves.
The KKK may return or something close.
The KKK may return or something close.
By golly, I believe that is historically correct!!
The KKK was HUGE in the 1920’s, much bigger than they were during Southern Reconstruction, and were bigger in states like Indiana than in the South! You won’t learn that in today’s history classes, though.
I doubt the Klan will return as that would require an inner strength that whites no longer have. There comes a time historically where a people have become so soft and tender that their death only provides amusement for others. The classic case being when the Great Khan came to Baghdad the citizens of that city came out waiving palm fronds and he and his men killed over a 100,000 making mounds of their skulls. I FEAR European whites are at that historical stage.
The MSM won’t touch any of these stories with a ten foot pole. Sad, but true.
No doubt that we have all grown soft but I have to believe there will be a tipping point. There has to be a reason a lot of white folks are arming themselves.(Not me of course)
About that time the KKK had a march on Washington D.C. and had several hundred thousand folks show up unlike saaay the million or twenty moose limb march.
For anyone interested in getting educated on the explosion of black-on-white violence, google Colin Flaherty, an investigative journalist who writes for WND. His book is White Girl Bleed a Lot which is a very tough read that documents this violence and the media’s refusal to report it.
There is a photo from that time of Margaret Sanger addressing the, um, “ladies” of the KKK at a rally, could have been Indiana but not certain....
The KKK will have to add a group to their hate list. That would be muslims.
Black on white crime is bringing the races farther apart. No white in his right mind will go to an area that is primarily black.
What a load of crap.
Sure. It happens to be true that blacks perpetrate more violent crimes. So what? It’s still a relatively small minority of the black population. Round up the miscreants and move on. If a few get shot in the process of committing wicked acts, then so be it.
This is where I just don’t get conservatives. We talk the talk about guns preventing crime and such, but how often do conservatives actually carry the tools of liberty? When was the last time YOU carried a handgun? Openly. With pride.
But no. We conservatives tend to sit in our well locked houses, with ADT on, and worry about crime.
Phooey.
Time to man up. Or woman up as the case may be. Get in the habit of carrying a gun, quit worrying about this criminality BS, and ENJOY life!
“His book is White Girl Bleed a Lot which is a very tough read that documents this violence and the media’s refusal to report it.”
Why do we need the lamestream media to report on it? We’re all well aware that blacks commit violent crimes at a rate higher than whites or hispanics. And this knowledge buys us exactly what? It’s not like Joe the law abiding black guy has any more control over black crime than I have control over white crime.
The lesson being taught to white people is clear.
If you do not know a black man, he must be considered as dangerous until he proves otherwise. Since most of these attacks are “cheap shots” at close range, white people must be extremely careful to not let an unknown black male within range.
And finally, white people must be prepared to defend themselves with lethal force if attacked. Just brandishing a gun while they flee is not enough, because you have just delayed an attack, which will likely happen next time to someone elderly, or young, or less able to defend themselves.
“I felt in danger for my life and fired my gun to prevent his attack.”
“No white in his right mind will go to an area that is primarily black.”
Really? I guess I’m not in my right mind, then. The difference though is that unlike a lot of sunshine conservatives, I’m ARMED.
So I don’t worry about it.
Too much truth. My head hurts.
“I doubt the Klan will return as that would require an inner strength that whites no longer have.”
Inner strength??? It requires “inner strength” to join and form a hate group? Excuse me while I vomit just a little bit...
What the hell is happening on here? I just read another guy’s post a few minutes ago opining about how he thought he would have so much more liberty in Russia than in America. That’s just sickening. If this isn’t just hyperbole and people genuinely feel this way, Obama didn’t just win reelection, he’s truly destroyed us. There’s no doubt that racial hatred is on the rise and Obama (aided and abetted by the media) has stoked those flames for personal gain. I think it’s part of his plan. It’s evil, plain and simple. But it’s not going to make me long for the days of the KKK or wish I lived in Russia under a thug like Putin. Where are the rational people?
“If you do not know a black man, he must be considered as dangerous until he proves otherwise.”
Oh what a load of horse hockey. If you assume that all people can be dangerous, then you act accordingly. No reason to be an ass towards people based on their skin color. Simply carry a pistol openly and stop worrying about it. Sheesh.
“Where are the rational people?”
I don’t claim to be completely rational, but I do claim to be pretty happy.
If crime is a concern for you, then carry the tools of liberty and quit worrying about it. This thinly veiled racist horse hockey really gets old after awhile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.