BLACK RACISM: THE HATE CRIME THAT DARE NOT SPEAK ITS NAME

Front Page Magazine ^ | July 16, 2002 | David Horowitz

[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.

[mrustow]

Thanks for that point, which I'd forgotten. The numbers are rotten in so many ways, that I have to laugh, when I hear "crime doctors" (criminologists) debating "broken windows" vs. "root causes" and such, or talking about demographic changes re younger "super-predators."
We have to use numbers, but I think that, given the mounting crime-counting scandals that have been exposed, especially in urban areas, that first-hand observation becomes more and more important. And the "experts" -- left and right -- tend to have no first-hand observations to bring to bear on the matter.

[mrustow]

Here's some more enlightenment for your dark, dank, little room:

Cincinnati Burning

[FairWitness]

Here is the deal. If a black commits a crime by pulling a name out of a hat, he will pick a white person 7 out of 10 times.

Your argument assumes an equal distribution of population geographically which is not true, or a deliberate effort by criminals to travel far enough to find a random distribution of victims. I think it is not as straightforward as you are trying to make it.

[mrustow]

And:

Cincinnati: Recipe for a Riot

[mrustow]

And the story continues:

Cincinnati, 2002: Return of the Lynch Mob

[dogbyte12]

According to Andrew Sullivan, Horowitz is full of it on this story. One of the perps had a white girlfriend, and there was never a racial slur expressed during the entire attack. Secondly, more blacks have been convicted of hate crimes than whites. Of course more blacks are committing crimes, and there are many racist blacks, but once again Horowitz doesn't deal with facts if they get in the way of his point.

[KansasGirl]

Very interesting.

[staytrue]

it is not as straightforward as you are trying to make it.

It is not straight forward at all. My point was that just because blacks are commiting 85% of the interracial crimes you can not conclude from this fact that blacks are targeting whites. To conclude that blacks are targeting whites in significant numbers, you need another fact besides this one because the 85% figure is what you would expect from random crimes. Perhaps blacks are targeting whites, perhaps not. Perhaps whites are targeting blacks, perhaps not. My point is, that there is no statistically significant fact that says one way or another.

[mrustow]

So, you've never heard of a racist black man who likes sleeping with white women? And your standard of "no racial epithet, no hate crime," is too legalistic. I've fought off lots of obviously racial attacks or threatened attacks in black neighborhoods, in which my attackers or would-be attackers never uttered a racial epithet. Please supply a link to Sullivan's "rebuttal."

[mrustow]

I'm glad you found the links of value.

[SJackson]

To conclude that blacks are targeting whites in significant numbers, you need another fact besides this one because the 85% figure is what you would expect from random crimes. Perhaps blacks are targeting whites, perhaps not. Perhaps whites are targeting blacks, perhaps not. My point is, that there is no statistically significant fact that says one way or another.

Please see my post 50 regarding cross racial rapes. While the fact that black on white crime was 85% of interracial crime might be explained by population statistics, it’s more a function of the large number of cross racial rapes committed by blacks (whites commit far more rapes).

Note that of black rapists, 41% of their crimes were cross racial, compared to 3% for white rapists. That’s far from statistically insignificant. If these were crimes of opportunity those stats would be similar for both groups.

[maxwell]

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.

Only reason I heard about it was that somebody made reference to it here on FR...

That is reprehensible.

I hope the Jasper-area NAACP is pleased with itself.

[staytrue]

Note that of black rapists, 41% of their crimes were cross racial, compared to 3% for white rapists

let's try this one more time with the last of the mohicans. Let's say that there exists one guy who is the last of the mohicans and he lives in a town with 5000 whites. Let's say the mohican goes out and rapes someone and a white guy rapes someone. In this case, Note that of mohican rapists, 100% of their crimes were cross racial, compared to 0% for white rapists

[wardaddy]

Late Bump....back from vacation....I see from this thread that the albeit well meaning ...Pollyannas did not suffer my absence. LOL