Posted on 07/16/2002 5:52:10 AM PDT by SJackson
We reported the story of the Wichita Massacre in these pages two years ago at the time it happened. Outside the local Wichita press, however, virtually the only media to report this hate crime were Frontpagemagazine.com and the American Renaissance newsletter. While the federal government rushes to Los Angeles to investigate an incident in which a handcuffed youth was slammed into the hood of a car and punched by an officer, a pall of silence still blankets the horrendous racial murder of four young people whose murderers are now on trial. The difference in the responses to these two stories can hardly be attributed to anything other than the skin color of the perpetrators and the victims involved. Apparently the sexual torture and brutal executions of four promising youngsters is of no interest to the nation's moral guardians, because the victims happen to be white.
Stephen Webster's account of these events provides a revealing window on the disturbing - not to say disgusting -- state of the civil rights delusion in America. The U.S. Justice Department has reported that 85% of all inter-racial violence in America is committed by blacks against whites. But there are apparently no black hate crimes; and there is certainly no white civil rights movement to create sympathy for the victims.
Nor can there be one in the present atmosphere of racial hypocrisy, where the mere expression of concern over attacks on white people would itself make an individual a ripe target for racial witch-hunters.
Because they are black, the Wichita killers have been protected from national scrutiny and have not even been charged with a hate crime. The entire apparatus of local government in Wichita - abetted by the national press -- has worked overtime to keep the public ignorant of what happened. If the truth came out, it would threaten a national melodrama in which only blacks are victims, only blacks are persecuted and only whites are racists. Within the framework of this melodrama, the only acceptable meaning of civil rights is retribution for blacks -- retribution for any and every crime, real or imagined, ever suffered by black people however remote in the past. "Reparations" is just the nom de jour of the new civil rights package.
What would happen if, instead, we returned to the idea of individual accountability, and gave up the totalitarian fantasies of reparations and "social justice," in which oppressed classes exact retribution from their age-old oppressors? What if we returned to the real world in which individuals commit indefensible misdemeanors (Los Angeles) and monstrous crimes (Wichita)? What if we revived the idea of making the punishment fit the actual deed? Think of all the people who wouldn't know what to do with themselves if that were to happen.
The fact is that the Wichita horror is but one of many spectacular lynchings of white people by black racists, which the nation's moral watchdogs choose to ignore.
Everybody in America, for example, knows who James Byrd is, and that he was brutally murdered by three whites in Jasper Texas four years ago. Byrd's lynchers offered him a lift in their pickup truck, beat him and chained him and dragged him to his death. An entire nation was outraged and guilty. The President issued a statement, legislators wrung their hands and the media keened over the inhumanity of the act and what it portended for the country's future.
Four years later - this year in fact - a white man named Ken Tillery, hitched a ride in Jasper, Texas. He was given a lift by four black men who then murdered him to a deafening national silence. Like Byrd, Tillery was held hostage and beaten. Then he was run over and crushed to death. The copycat nature of the crime made it a natural news story. But there was none, save a modest account in the Houston Chronicle, to which nobody paid any attention. This savagery was apparently nothing. The pigments were politically incorrect. It was only some white guy, whose ancestors probably owned slaves.
We make no apologies for expressing outrage over these facts or printing the story of the Wichita slayings. We would like to see the trial of these killers reported on Peter Jennings' World News Tonight. We would like to see the story of the murders retold on 60 Minutes or 48 Hours. We would like to see Spike Lee direct a Hollywood feature or Jesse Jackson conduct a pilgrimage to Kansas to plea for racial peace.
But we know these things won't happen. To begin with, Jesse Jackson and Spike Lee don't have the moral intelligence to take these steps. Nor does Peter Jennings. We're regret that this is the case. But we are certain there will not be any bright future for race relations in this country until silences like these are broken.
All the more reason to keep a gun in your home.
Your analysis would then indicate that most black crime is committed against whites, which is incorrect. I’ve read as much as 90% of black crime is black on black. I assume that figure holds for violent crime as well.
I think the Justice Dept figure is referring only to that subset of overall violent crime, inter-racial. That said, there could be factors other that race acting as motivators. It’s unclear to me just what “inter-racial violence” involves. If it includes things like muggings or burglary, economic factors could play a big part.
However, chances are if your parents had no children, you probably won't either.
As much as I like and admire Horowitz, this story was written on by a national columnist, Paul Scates, which is where Horowitz read about the story. Stealing stories is a mortal sin, no matter what side you're on. Famous writers love to see themselves cited and quoted by lesser names, but routinely refuse to give minimal respect to the people who much of the time break the stories they make money off of: No Hate Crime Here, Boss, Just Killin' a White Man
I've been patiently waiting for updates on this case.
mrustow, thanks for the links. Horowitz appears to get his data from the links below, a report issued a few years ago.
Aristeides, you can find detailed statistics here Color of Crime-PDF file
Color of Crime-HTML Cached copy
Using your example of Rape/Sexual assault, for 1999:
White Victims 313,080100
78.4% White Perp (245,454)
10.1% black perp (31,621), remainder unknown
Black Victims 53,670
10.1% white perp (5,420)
83.5% (44,814) black perp, remainder unknown
A white victim is as likely to be attacked by a black (10.1%) as a black victim by a white (10.1%). From that perspective, the racial fear factor appears to be the same.
However, there are 37, 041 cross racial rapes, of which 85% were black on white crimes. And of the 76,435 rapes committed by blacks (about 25% of the total), 41% were cross racial, compared to only 3% for white rapists. Race would appear to be a factor. The stats appear to be similar for other categories.
I still don't understand why crime isn't crime, regardless of race.
I would agree with you.
Nor does it mean that the whites are targeting blacks, but that sort of logic produced hate crime legislation.
I'll look them up for you...
Bob Johnson of BET.
Stanley O'Neal of Merrill Lynch.
Another link on Mr. O'Neal...he is a big cheese at a brokerage...he could be in some trouble, like white guys. Or is he a token Black...
Re race and crime, though with less in the way of hard numbers, see also:
The Philadelphia Story: When the Cops are Criminals
Solving Philly Crime with an Eraser: The "Good Irishman" and the Race Man
De-Policing in America's Cities: Erasing the "Thin Blue Line"
No, it isn't. It was a fact in 1990, but it no longer is. Why? Because blacks target whites. You like to talk abstractly about statistics, but put one white on a subway train with twenty blacks, and if a pair of muggers come on the train, they will target the white. And I'm not talking abstractly, but from many first-hand experiences. Don't believe me? Spend some time on subways with majority black populations, traveling through black neighborhoods.
It does not mean that blacks are targeting themselves. Blacks are commiting a lot of crime on a per capita basis and it looks like it is very random and not targeting white, black or otherwise. This wichita incident is over a year old. The fact that the author did not find anything more recent means this stuff if very unlikely. You have more to fear from gary condit, bill clinton, ted bundy, the green river prostitute killer, or the guy who did in Ms. Smart than roving bands of blacks looking rape a white girl.
Nonsense. Either you were too lazy to read the article through, or you are deeply dishonest, since the author wrote about the Ken "Bimbo" Tillery case, in which a white man was murdered based on the color of his skin -- six months ago. Indeed, if you took the trouble to read up on the matter, you'd come across such cases every few weeks, and sometimes more often than that. Indeed, if my experiences in NYC, and the 1991 admission of an NYPD detective -- that whites are brutally attacked on a daily basis for the "crime" of being white -- are any indication, then black-on-white racial murders occur somewhere in America ... on a daily basis. And blacks are targeting whites in NYC much more today than they were in 1991. As they are in Cincinnati, Seattle, Jasper, Texas ... and elsewhere.
But you're not interested in the truth.
"Asian"? You're lumping Asians together with blacks and Hispanics? I dare you to come up with examples where Asians have been criticized the same as blacks and Hispanics. There's a reason for that -- Asians don't racially target whites for rapes, robberies, and murders. My experience is that socialists are often hostile towards Asians, while conservatives usually embrace them. But I have come across a number of pc types who like to say among themselves that white conservatives are anti-Asian. You guys need to work on your rhetoric.
In your political correctness, you remind me of a well-to-do, white, socialist brother-in-law of mine. The guy is a foot taller than me, and in much better shape, but won't walk around the corner to pick up eggs or milk, at any time of day, no matter how much he needs them, because the store is in a black neighborhood. He's scared to death of crossing paths with blacks. When I stayed with him, I went to that neighborhood day or night, if I needed something.
In later years he would laugh at me, because I would visit my sister and him, stay late, and take New York's most racist, violent subway train (the A) home at midnight. Although my brother-in-law lives on the safest train lines in New York (the 2 & 3), he will never take the train outside of rush hour -- he'll take a taxi home to Brooklyn.
But get him in a conversation about race, and he'll talk the same nonsense you do. He considers me a racist, because I don't say things I know to be untrue, and because I believe in treating everyone the same. And because unlike him, I don't live in fear of black faces.
An aside, in reading the data I linked in 50, I learned that per Justice Department statistics, Hispanics are categorized Hispanic when victims, but white when perpetrators. I guess you put anyone, anywhere to make the numbers "work".
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.