In my city, it's pretty normal for a black male to die from a gunshot wound in a crime-ridden neighborhood because of his involvement with narcotics trafficking.
I suspect that's pretty normal all across this country. Drug dealers die or go to jail everyday and most of the time it's not news. No need for long-involved profiles on how they ended up in a life of crime, no attempts to explain how their lives still had value. They are just dead, and nobody bats an eye.
But, let some white guys rob some banks, and it's a different story.
If you take the time to read that story, you'll find a detailed recounting of white cats in financial trouble robbing folks. And I mean robbing, not embezzling, not cooking the books, but pulling out a hammer and telling cats to "give it up."
It's to be expected that during tough economic times (TET) folks are going to start robbing. If you ain't got something, and something else does, some cats believe that's a good reason to play Jesse James. Shoot, in my city every day brings more reports of robberies and car jackings. I'm sure it's the same in most cities across the country.
The thing is, when these robberies feature young black males, nobody seems to care why they are robbing folks.
Feel free to correct if you disagree, but I can honestly say that I don't remember the last time I read a news article detailing why young black males are involved in the drug trade or the robbing trade. I really have not read an article that strikes the same tone of sympathy, and goes out of its way to blame the actions of the criminals on the circumstances of their lives.
Cause, if we're comparing effed up life circumstances, well young black men in the the inner city just have to win, hands down. It's not even a contest. It's like PacMan versus Hatton.
This story, and the many others like it I've read, are just another example of how this country defines "normal" through the prism of "whiteness."
Y'all think I'm tripping, well let me break it down further.
Black people are expected to be violent, amoral, and predatory. It's assumed to be in our DNA. Therefore, when we commit crimes, such as robbery, we are not responding to our environments or stress in our lives, we are instead staying in line with our deepest instincts. Having sympathy for a black criminal is akin to having sympathy for a hungry tiger. The best way to deal with both is a high-powered rifle.
Conversely, white people represent all that is good, pure and perfect in the world. When they fail to live up to their innate goodness, it is because of outstanding stress placed on their lives. Therefore whenever white people succumb to this stress and commit crimes, we must be reminded of exactly what stress was in their lives so no other white people would believe that the problem was innate.
Do y'all get it now?
Nobody wrote articles talking about how difficult it is to make an honest living in the hood because nobody cares about that. After all, even you gave black folks jobs, they'd still do evil because it's in their blood. Instead, we should devote our time to solving the problems affecting the lives of white people so they can get back to their normal, angelic lives.
Anything else is not only a waste of time...
It just ain't normal.
Share
Pay Attention
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License.
27 comments:
lil' man,
Once again we see you fall victim to your own subconscious liberalism. Because liberalism puts one in a state of gray - meaning liberalism rejects absolute truth - one is left with the empty feeling that he has no grasp of ANY truth. So the practical remedy is to fall to the extremes because man ultimately requires some kind of "truth."
In your case, the "truth" is seeing life only through a black/white prism that renders a completely false reality.
Who was the last white criminal that you can recall having received some kind of white public sympathy that wasn't of the white liberal type?
Who was the last black criminal that you can recall having received some kind of black public sympathy?
Get a grip, lil' man. If you want to keep adding fuel to the fire then why cry when you get burnt?
If your extremist rhetoric and your inability to truthfully convey the real mechanics of America in 2009 continues unabated then one has to make the plausible assumption that you're another one of those radical power-hungry revolutionary cats? Is this the case?
This post is a farce! Everybody knows that White people DO NOT commit crimes. Well, that's with the exception of the rare "white collar" crime or two. Now you Negroes on the other hand? You guys can't help it; its in your DNA.
Bravo. I have been noticing similiar things up here in my corner of the world. So called good guys who start robbing banks in time of need.
Look, I have financial woes but I am not about to start robbing banks. I doubt if I did that the media would make it sound harmless.
I agree racism on some level is at work in how these folks are presented.
No, you aren't tripping.
Aren't these the descendents of some of them cats that looked up to Dillenger, Bonnie & Clyde, and Baby face? I left out "Scarface" because that's obvious. Sometimes these days, I just omit the racial factor and still come to the conclusion that its strange how some criminals are given passes while the others are scorned, even though both groups do the exact same thing. The "peculiar institution" mindset sort of lingers in the air, but just grab some air freshner!
I agree with you substantially about this, but to some degree there is some apple-orange action here.
That is to say, if you compare career black criminals to career white criminals, you'll see less sympathy. The whites might still come out on top with a little of that "robin hood" hero thing, but a career bank robber, for example, who's white isn't going to get much of a defense...though it's still possible he/she would be demonized less than a black drug dealer or black carjacker or whatever.
I think where it would be a more interesting question, and I don't know if there are enough stories out there to make a judgement, to see how unlikely white criminals get compared to unlikely black criminals.
That is, for example, if a white stockbroker goes and robs and bank...and a black lawyer goes and robs a bank...would the economy or outside circumstances be examined, or would the black person simply be written off as another black criminal and the white person as a victim of circumstances or someone who "just snapped."
I suspect we might see some racial inequity there, but I couldn't say for certain how much or how we'd see it play out.
I live in Louisiana.
The state that came in second for the lowest percentage of votes for Obama in the country.
I don't the white folks I see getting a pass or getting a pass because of liberalism.
But that's probably just my black/white prism talking.
LMAO
Good point Deac.
You're right, that would be a better comparison. And I agree that there is scorn for career criminals of any color.
What typically happens when you have career white criminals is that the individual gets scorned, but very few comments are made about "white culture" as a whole.
However, with career black criminals, sweeping indictiments are made about "black culture."
I think that there is news in "unlikely" criminals of any hue. However, I think that this article seemed to not only provide sympathy, but seemed to provide a justification for what happened. The thing is, these men were not "forced" to steal because of their circumstances. And, if we provide them with the justification, then we must provide it to the millions of young black men who are "forced" by much worse circumstances.
You are right about the implications AND accusations that are made about black culture in connection with black crime an awful lot of the time. So on that point, compared with white culture, I'd say that apples are being compared with apples.
"one of those radical power-hungry revolutionary cats" ... I am, what about you?
It was radical power-hungry revolutionary cats who initiated the American Revolution, which we praise as a definiing moment in Western civilization, though those S.O.B.s owned slaves while fighting for their own "liberty." The bottom line is that when white folks commit crimes everyone wants to know why--was he/she abused, did he experience a tragedy recently, were there added pressures at work, was he teased at school. When blacks folks commit crimes every says "it figures"--like black folks don't experience or aren't affected by the same stresses.
If this post is the proper explanation, for the difference, then you explain it, Thor. Instead, you want to go a step further and say that there is not difference. Now, that figures!
TAN man says,
The bottom line is that when white folks commit crimes everyone wants to know why...This is patently absurd. Do you have a cogent example of this that doesn't include white liberals as the "everyone" that want to know "why?"
When blacks folks commit crimes every says "it figures"--like black folks don't experience or aren't affected by the same stresses.When black folks commit crimes it is a given in a liberal society that "racist" rationalizations be put forth fast and furious. Think OJ and R. Kelly as prime examples of this phenomenon.
In fact, the only white criminal that I can recall getting any sympathy was the evil witch that drowned her five children and the sympathy was courtesy of the radical pro-abortion feminist kind.
If you have other examples of a white criminal getting white public sympathy then please share it with the rest of us.
So the article wasn't proof enough?
Interesting...
What's really funny is how liberal white people don't really count as white people.
But all black people count as black people.
That's really funny.
I've been screaming this since the recession started..hell, even BEFORE that. Sadly, not everybody wants to admit the truth in this.
Good post.
lil' man,
The article was written by Meg Kinnard. She is almost certainly a liberal who requires "root causes" to "explain" the errant and criminal actions of others.
But the larger point is now being glossed over. What white people are actually sympathizing with white criminals other than white liberals who sympathize and find justification for all kinds of criminal and debauched behavior whether it be the behavior of blacks or whites?
Speak some truth, lil' man!
Like I said.
White liberals aren't really white.
All black people are black.
You a funny dude.
lil' man,
Liberal whites are liberals first and whites last, if not least.
You try to paint this picture that "whites" look for excuses for white criminality while looking at black criminality as though it was inherent and instinctual. Yet, this "truth" isn't all that truthful.
The fact is that most whites who aren't liberal give no sympathy to white criminality and treat black criminality just the same. These are the "whites" you consider most racist and yet they more often than not treat ALL criminality with equal disgust.
Again, why blur the lines between ideological opposites and act as if Meg Kinnard isn't doing EXACTLY what liberals are bound to do in all cases of debauchery and criminality regardless of the color of the criminal?
Liberals, whether they be white or non-white are commanded by their ideology to find rationalizations and justifications for all societal transgressions unless the transgressions are racism, sexism and homophobia. In those cases, no need to look for excuses and rationalizations because then we would have to put liberalism under the microscope.
"Liberal whites are liberals first and whites last, if not least.
You try to paint this picture that "whites" look for excuses for white criminality while looking at black criminality as though it was inherent and instinctual. Yet, this "truth" isn't all that truthful.
The fact is that most whites who aren't liberal give no sympathy to white criminality and treat black criminality just the same. These are the "whites" you consider most racist and yet they more often than not treat ALL criminality with equal disgust."
The above comment makes no sense and speaks directly to the problem that this post speaks of. The assertion that White Liberals are Liberals first before being White downplays the obvious privilege a White person is afforded based on the social construct of race.
It is this very cultural fact which creates the said "sympathy" for White criminality as opposed to that of Blacks. It is no accident that this is the way it is. This line of thinking is deeply rooted in White Supremacy as it has always been the main goal of dehumanizing people of color relative to the White majority.
I will end and say that Liberals, whether Black or White, do tend to focus on the root causes of social ills to be the economic disparities and though using historical reference pints in the context of race, they often do this with placing very little emphasis on self accountability. As a progressive myself, I think this is what sets back the movement. At the end of the day, this isn't about political ideology, this is indeed the ugly truth that is America.
rippa,
There is truth to the notion of "white privilege," but unless you are willing to set aside your liberal tendencies, you can't even begin to give US a truer picture of reality.
White privilege is no different than privilege in general. What we know of privilege is that it is inherent to ANY civilized society. So it should not shock one to find "white privilege" in a white-majority society.
What you don't say explicitly, you simply imply by being ambiguous and liberal in your notion of "white privilege." Meaning, doing as a liberal does, not only do you fail to provide us a particular definition of "white privilege," but you fail to distinguish between good white privilege (the stuff that helps build civilization) and bad white privilege (the stuff that makes society cynical and LIBERAL). This liberal tactic of being ambiguous and abstract leaves one with conclusion that "white privilege" is ALL bad because we live in a liberal society. And with such understanding one can make the claim that started this entry.
Yet, it is the liberal mentality that blurs your understanding and has you claim that "whites" sympathize with white criminality when in actuality it is liberal blacks and whites that constantly find "root causes" (justifications and rationalizations) for non-white criminality as you have conceded.
Good white privilege isn't granted to white criminals, but bad liberal privilege is granted to non-white criminals. In fact, white criminals are by and large shunned and marginalized by traditional-minded whites while non-white criminals are in many cases defended rigorously by both black and white liberals.
Strom Thurmond was a rapist.
Harry Reid was a terrorist.
Jesse Helms regularly broke the law.
Yet they all kept their jobs as members of Congress, a position that implies they have the prestige and respect of their constiuents, who are also overwhelmingly white.
David Duke is a popular public speaker.
There was a recent movement to get former Gov. Edwin Edwards released from prison in La. because people felt sorry for him.
Dick Cheney is pissed Scooter Libby didn't get pardoned.
I can go on an on listing examples where white people have engaged in criminal behavior and been given esteem by other white people in spite of it.
You use qualifiers like "traditional-minded" white people to avoid the term "white people" by itself. You create subsets of "white people" to bolster your argument and attempt to tear down mine.
It's a sad, sad day when the man who claims to be committed to obective, observable "truth" must create "truth" to make himself feel better. I mean, you have yet to define "traditional" whites.
Just like you have yet to explain how you read the Bible and settled on the doctrine that abortion is worse than lying. Or fornication, or stealing, or divorce, or adultery.
You have never, EVER, provided an explanation for that stance that aligns with the Bible, at best you have distorted and skewed scripture to fit your "reality."
You are a funny cat, M.C. Hammer.
lil' man,
Whenever you decide to drop the "liberal" in your liberal Christianity, you will be one "BIG" step closer to embracing truth.
Your main point was to assert that whites treat whites differently than whites treat blacks. Ho hum... Extraordinarily unprofound... Adding nothing to what most of us already know to be true and normal.
Your subordinate point was to assert that whites find justifications and rationalizations for white criminals while thinking that black criminality is innate and instinctual and so think nothing of it.
And although there is truth to be found throughout this statement, there is greater truth to be told.
The reality is that white liberals find justifications and rationalizations for crimes against tradition whether they be committed by whites or blacks. White liberals also believe in a blank slate theory of man which not only underscores the point made above, but rebuts the notion that they believe black violence to be innate or instinctual. A belief that runs contrary to modern evolutionary theory.
Likewise, traditional whites don't excuse criminality in either the case of whites or blacks. But they will most definitely stand up against miscarriages of law. This is a traditional white Christian stance.
Also, most traditional-minded whites recognize a propensity for violence in all man and that is why restraint is primary to free-will. In that case, many traditionalist whites would see black criminality as an innate and instinctual behavior that resides within all of us but for various reason is disproportionately unrestrained in blacks communities the world over.
If such a view leads one to make generalizations about whether blacks are unable to restrain their violent instincts or impulses as compared to whites, what would you say...?
You would give us the white liberal answer!And one last distinguishing characteristic of traditional-minded whites is that although they may see black violence as rooted in the fallability of man, they undoubtedly pay it mind when another black beast rapes and butchers a young white girl.
And now lil' man will tell me that kind of concern is "racist." Lol!
All I ask is that you be more truthful lil' man and then you can be Big again.
I stopped reading your response early on.
You admit my main point is true, if unprofound. You admit my secondary point is true, but it doesn't tell the whole story.
Now, I want you to go back to your initial comments on this piece, and see if your current comments align with your initial comments.
From where I'm sitting, if you think my points are true, but not profound, that is a justification for providing more nuance, not challenging the inherent validity of what I said. Unfortunately, that's not what you chose to do.
Read your own comments. Initially I was spouting a "false reality" now I'm just spouting ho-hum point that nobody really cares about. Yet, these are the same points that I said from the beginning, nothing has changed except for your response. You have completely changed your point of view, not me.
You challenge me to come over to your way of thinking, but you have yet to clearly define your way of thinking, nor have you provided a compelling argument for why your thought process is superior. Then, you attempt to dangle the idea of calling me by the moniker that I have chosen as a way to entice me to agree with you?
How incredibly arrogant and miguided. You decided, on your own, to behave how you wanted to behave. Ultimately, you are responsible for your own choices and actions, as are we all. You cannot pretend that my choices "forced" you to behave in a certain way, nor can you use the reality that some black folks display bad behavior as a justification of stereotypes and discrimination.
The actions of others do not justify my actions. While they may affect what I do, I ultimately answer to God for everything I have done and he is not interested in hearing about the behavior of others. You seem to have failed to grasp that concept when it applies to your own behavior and those who agree with you, although you are quick to trot it out for others.
Funny how that works.
lil' man,
I gave you the benefit of the doubt when I said there was some "truth to be found" in your statement about how whites treat white crime versus how whites treat black crime. The "truth" is that more often than not whites treat each scenario differently.
But it is also true that liberal whites treat white and black crime the same as long as those crimes are against tradition. These whites are specific and identifiable.
You refuse to distinguish between white liberals who justify black criminality based on their "blank slate theory" and their distaste for traditional white Americans and those whites that don't excuse ANY criminality, but have a special concern for black crime.
You also refuse to recognize that traditional-minded whites aren't prone to excusing black criminality but at the same time have very much a concern for why blacks have a high rate of criminality especially the violent type that target whites for a vengeful death.
So again, the "truth" you told was of limited value in telling us what reality really consists of and this lack of nuance is directly attributable to your subconscious liberalism.
You are talking about reality and actually made this comment:
"traditional-minded whites aren't prone to excusing black criminality but at the same time have very much a concern for why blacks have a high rate of criminality especially the violent type that target whites for a vengeful death."
You do realize this very thought runs counter to every known statistic about crime, right?
You know that black people do not "target" white people for violent crime and vast, VAST majority of violent crime is commited by people of one race against people of that same race, right?
I can't believe you wrote that. I can't believe you were comfortable enough in either your ignorance or lie to trot out that argument. That's pretty bad man.
You have exposed that the fears of "traditional white" (that magical nebulous group you've created) aren't based in "reality" but in their own tortured subconscious. This is bad man, this is really bad. You've exposed yourself completely with that one statement.
lil' man,
Please... Blacks don't target whites for violent deaths? You ever heard of the Zebra killings? You ever read Elridge Cleaver's desire to rape white women?
If millions of blacks buy into the notion that whites are their violent and evil oppressors then only a fool would suggest that some blacks haven't intentionally targeted whites for death.
And it's not fear to recognize reality, but commonsense.
Get a grip on reality, lil' man.
Once again, ignore reality, cherrypick a few examples, call that truth.
Which blacks commit violent crimes, "traditional" or "liberal?"
Seems like you have a problem with lumping us all in together, the same thing you complain about me doing. Lol.
Guess what, I'm through. You exposed your true problem in your comment about violent crime. Ain't no reasoning with somebody who lives in a fantasy world where white folks are being preyed on by roving gangs of evil, liberal black thugs.
That's fantasy world.
lil' man,
I only need one example of blacks targeting whites for rape and murder to rebut your assertion that blacks don't target whites for rape and murder.
I've held up my end of the truth and also put a lie to your notion that "whites" don't really give black criminality any thought beyond the idea that it's innate and instinctual. In fact, some whites recognize that black agency, beyond the excuses of innateness and instincts, are individuals capable of acting in all sorts of manner including striking revenge for 500 years of slavery and oppression.
Thor
Let me hip you to something. When you use terms without qualifiers you create invalid arguments.
Just so you can know that going forward.
Post a Comment