Racism or Silence? What’s Wrong With This Picture?
This comes by way of Glenn Beck’s increasingly excellent online news site The Blaze. A local Buffalo man is interviewed after the home of an African immigrant is set on fire by an arsonist. The Buffalo man says the fire is understandable because African-Americans ruin any neighborhood they move into.
Now before I react, let me reiterate what I’ve said here before. I believe racism as a philosophy is knuckleheaded pseudo-science and moral idiocy. It is the kind of half-smart thinking I expect from leftists, and goes entirely against the respect for the individual that is at the heart of conservatism.
That said, what struck me about the video above was not the opinion of the interviewee — who is an honest person on the ground reporting the facts as he sees them — but the reaction of the interviewer from local TV station WIVB-TV. He (sounds like a kid) is clearly shocked by the man’s direct response to his questions and keeps asking, “Don’t you see something wrong with what you’re saying? Mightn’t this be offensive? Isn’t there a bias to your opinion?”
Really? Is that the problem?
As good ole Mark Steyn says, “In a free society, we need de-sensitivity training, not sensitivity training.”
A culture which does not discuss its concerns and problems is not a healthy one; it’s one sick with a fossilization of the herd opinion (little jab at the Neitzschians and Darwiniacs there). And when free speech cannot be used to loosen our stress, when our very personality is policed by the politically correct, we are not better off. We become enormously stressful, a people prone to explosive release of these tensions. Where verbal bickering may once have sufficed, perhaps even offering some sense to the misled, enforced silence brings about a volatility that we now see increasing in many areas. Ethnic radicalism remains at the forefront of this problem.
“it’s one sick with a fossilization of the herd opinion (little jab at the Neitzschians and Darwiniacs there)”
A mis-placed one.
The left’s problem is not with “Darwiniacs”, but with Lysenkoists. Not as in literal believers in the pseudo-biology of Lysenko, but in those who behave like him and his patron, Stalin: that facts must bow before ideology, and any that do not shall be buried and declared unclean.
I would agree with that. My use of Nietzsche was a reference to his attention to herd mentality, which is where Lysenko would fit in. The reference to Darwin was in response to the subject of racism which is an irremovable part of his work. On the Origin of Species begins with being able to breed better animals through selection and it goes on to assert that humanity is subject to the same selective forces. I read the past five or six Klavan articles in one sitting (catching up) so his piece on gendercide was fresh in the mind. I believe it ended with a reference to breeding the perfect race or some such, which is in essence what much of racism is subconsciously. So, not misplaced, just distinct from the primary focus of this particular article.
Its true
More people need to tell the truth about how – and why – blacks have many more problems as a group. It’s an intervention/rescue tactic. These are human beings made in the image of God like everyone else.
They were not made inferior (and are not inferior in any way) by God so something is responsible for the continuing issues that keep the black man down. The only ones that do well are the ones that got off the plantation and do not live out their “blackness” as leftist elites – both black and white – conceive of it and the ones like Sharpton etc… that help run the plantation. Those groups are not mutually exclusive.
Answer – Get off the plantation
Black Man heal thyself.
True indeed, and playing Devils Advocate to Andrews guote
“I fear…this guy..[will] suffer retribution…for speaking directly — I daresay manfully”
Manfully?
Shoe on the other foot.
If a returning War Veteran’s new home was burned down, and the reporter interviewed some some Local Trendy Lefties, who said “Good! Serves him right!” because they “dont want a Racist Conservative Facist War Pig who volunteered in an illegal war on brown people” ruining their hip Prius-n-Starbucks neighborhood. “let them stay in the trailer parks where they belong, we’re cool techie’s, Military people are such losers, ewww”
Would you ever consider such talk “manful” ?
What would you expect (hope?) the reporter to respond with?
A simple, “Well, folks, thats the opinion here on the streets, back to the studio”
Or, like this reporter, being simply agast at such a disgusting, indefensible opinion, and it showing.
“What would you expect (hope?) the reporter to respond with? A simple, “Well, folks, thats the opinion here on the streets, back to the studio””
Actually, yes. The interviewer’s job is supposed to be to find out what the subject thinks.,and report that. Putting words into the subject’s mouth is the conceit of the leftist interviewer.
Dave,
I agree, in a perfect world a reporter would remain neutral. But in the scenario I described, if the reporter let the comments stand without challenge, I would assume he was SUPPORTIIVE of them, and used his position as a journolist to “mainstream” some pretty nasty, partisan views as “normal”. They do that on the Left all the time.
Its a razor edge…everyone has a right to an opinion, but some views are simply reprehensible.
But who and when to appropriately comment on that, well, thats the trick isnt it?
I find the view that journalists are morally obligated to censor politically incorrect speech, reprehensible.
Now what?
Why not? Maybe it makes the interview more like the Jay-walking segments on the Leno show, where they show just how idiotic the man on the street can be, but maybe it’s newsworthy showing just how the neighbors think.
Maybe a decent tv station would do a follow-up exploring the neighbors reactions and seeing if there’s some relationship to reality (if they really were “indefensible”).
I think we’re splitting hairs now, but….
What I thought was “indefensible” was not the mans racial attitudes, but the mans (Apparrent? Possible?) non-challont acceptance of arson, (was it arson,..not sure?) against an American Homeowner, as a ligitimate means of expressing political disagreement.
Kinda like the Bill Ayres moment that should have, but never did, happen in an honest interview….
“Bill, argue all you want about “the system” and “the war”, thats fine, but whoa, whoa, back up….youre saying BOMBING a police station is OK? Risks to innocent bystanders is a ligitimate thing for OTHERS to bear, in support of YOUR agenda? Thats a valid viewpoint we should respect?”
A decent American reporter would (should) challenge/reject the notion of terrorism a political tool, lest the “legitimitize” it based on the magnitude of the “grievance”. In some cases they do, like the rare instances of abortion clinic bombings or this story.
But when the perps are Lefty eco-terrorists, animal rights, OWS, or Islam appolgists, the conversation goes silent.
And that aint right.
I dont have a problem when Jourolists call out obviously despicable behavior.
I have a problem when only one side gets that treatment.
Root83: This is an exceptional answer. Only problem is the reporter would- beyond doubt- not comment or try to get the interview subject to change his opinion in your hypothetical. There is not any question he would say: And that is the word from the street….”
We see the same response every time Sandra Fluke complains about her “rights” being taken away. We see it when Eric Holder lies about blacks losing their voting rights. We see it each and every time Obo-Mao opens his mouth about class warfare and how the rich (who already pay all the taxes) need to pay their fair share.
The seemingly offensive claim that ‘blacks always ruin the neighborhoods they move into happens to be a LOT more true than Fluke, Holder and Obama’s lies. Perhaps the interviewer could have asked the man why he felt that way rather than trying to get him to change his mind.
Hard to tell if this guy is a hater as he opposes black move-ins on practical grounds, not the type of rant you invent ["..racist fascist ...war pig..."]. If you believe in free speach, like Klavan, then everyone gets to have an opinion, even leftists. This guy’s direct expression is both couragous and manful.
Just as a sort of academic aside, did anyone else notice that the guy was using rationales involving *African-Americans* to explain why a house belonging to an *African immigrant* would be burned. Of course, neither is acceptable, but my point is that African-American and African are two different (albeit related) things.
Also, I’m with Klavan. The main objection I have to the guy’s comment isn’t that it’s offensive, it’s that it’s bone-stupid. I actually have Black neighbors; much prefer their company to this idiot’s.
Take a walk inside any big City black residential areas during daylight and during the dark, I’d recommend you carry a large sum of cash so you can buy your way out of a killin’ maybe a beat down but not a redistribution of your wealth.
You could also send your significant other dressed to the nines and see how long she/he lasts.
Park your car anywhere there also, be sure ya got lo jack or at least full coverage of insurance.
Send in your teen age kids and allow them to party at the pool like that pool party last week end in Atlanta. I’d kiss them by if I were you.
Open a business that stays open 24/7 then watch your losses to shoplifting and open armed robbery rise.
Then do all of the above in a racially mixed or white maybe Hispanic neighborhood and compare the data you get.
Then get back with us on the results.
HEP-T: you’re speaking to an audience that doesn’t want to hear it.
This is part of a larger phenomenon, by the way. Establishment “conservatives,” or at least that’s what they call themselves, say that theirs is a “big tent,” but it opens only to the left, not to the right. Manfully speaking truth to power, as the gentleman being hectored by the college boy “journalist” did, is not on the agenda. “Gay conservatives?” Sure, NAMBLA members step right up and sign up, maybe we’ll bring you some toddlers to help you relax in the Green Room before we go on the air. “Hispanic conservatives?” Sure, sign on the dotted line, Mr. Wetback sir, and let me bring you your welfare check and your voter registration form. Populist reformers? White nationalists? For some reason, they’re despicable weirdos, not welcome in the “Grand Old Party.”
This is why the Left always wins in the end. “No enemies to the left, no friends to the right” is part of the mental landscape of Leftists, whether they are the honest ones who admit what they are, or whether they are the ones pretending to be “conservatives” this week. “Ted Kennedy is a pretty cool guy once you get to know him and we have a lot in common, but David Duke is an insane fascist because he’s one tenth of a millimeter to the right of me and I am therefore obligated to sabotage and discredit him and spit in his face whenever possible.” This is why organized conservative parties always turn into circular firing squads.
And this is why I stopped voting. Tweedledee Obama or Tweedledum McCain, what difference was there? I am not blind nor stupid. I saw what they did to Ross Perot, to Pat Buchanan, to Ron Paul, to David Duke, for failure to tug the forelock for their betters and mouth all the right politically correct slogans. A conservative party brave enough to nominate someone who genuinely and authentically speaks for me might get my interest, maybe, but I’m not holding my breath. Until then, y’all can keep your ritual of pretending your vote matters every four years, and I’m gonna keep on stockpiling canned goods and ammo.
“my point is that African-American and African are two different (albeit related) things.”
Yes they are. And maybe someone could point that out to this man. But nobody will if nobody knows that he’s making that illogical leap of assumptions, and they won’t know that if he’s not allowed to SAY it. On the other hand, he’s an idiot and he’s stupid, and so he doesn’t matter to people who think the right way. Why should they waste their time trying to exchange ideas with him and maybe get him to change his mind? Why bother? It makes for a neater, prettier world to just airbrush these people out of society.
Except it’s not exactly an illogical leap. A lot of Africans – especially African muslims – do not culturally fit in our society. Their culture finds nothing at all wrong with raping little children. In fact, they really can’t understand why we get upset about it.
Ergo – it’s not the color of their skin – it’s their culture.
‘airbrush these people out of society’
Gee, just like Stalin.
I don’t think the off-camera interviewer is trying to get the interviewee to stop talking. He’s just shocked that the interviewee is ignoring political correctness and daring to say what he says, which is blatantly racist by media standards.
I think the interviewer is almost wetting himself in despair that years of Leftist indoctrination have failed to suppress the interviewee’s language so that he verbally kowtows to the notion that all black people are just as good as all white people and that black people are no more violent or dangerous than white people. The interviewer is panicking in at least part of his mind because all that conditioning apparently FAILED, at least in the case of his interviewee. He gives the interviewee several chances to realize that he has been politically incorrect and to retract his words. The interviewee stubbornly refuses to back-pedal and acknowledges that most white people would not say such things openly to the media. He KNOWS he is being politically incorrect, grievously so (by the standards of the interviewer) and simply doesn’t care.
I think the interviewer is utterly baffled and will quickly report this incident to his fellow media people to warn them that the political correctness conditioning may finally be breaking down. Higher-ups will start looking around to see if there is any sign that this is the start of a trend or just a fluke….
Please don’t construe any of my remarks as being racist. I have no hostility to black people and have had only good experiences with the few black neighbors I’ve encountered. I’ve never lived in a neighborhood with a significant percentage of blacks though so I have no opinion on whether the interviewer is right in his remarks.
I have heard that 8% seems to be the magic number. When a neighborhood is perceived as having more than 8% black residents, whites start leaving in significant numbers for “whiter” suburbs. I don’t know if these neighborhoods really do go downhill though or if the whites are just leaving for fear that they will go downhill and feel it is better to get out before property values decline too far.
“goes entirely against the respect for the individual”. Really? Pointing out a well-known and documented group characteristic rules out respect for individuals? That’s the bone-headed sort of thinking I would expect from leftists.
It is apparent to anyone who wants to check things out…just a little; that ALL people prefer to be with their own race, culture, heritage and beliefs.
That is just the way humans are made and there is nothing wrong or racist about it.
The lefties don’t deal in the reality of humans. We must all be stuffed in to fit in their delusionl ideals. But it is never going to happen.
Ah yes – clustering. The British just found out that all people do it – not just racist white people.
For instance, on the set of Planet of the Apes when all the gorilla actors sat together for lunch, likewise Chimpanzees, etc. What’s most interesting about that is that while they knew what they were wearing, they obviously couldn’t see their OWN mask!
I do not have sound on my computer, so I cannot watch the videos, so I just have questions for those who do watch it.
Did he say he agreed with what was done, or did he say that he understands how folks might be motivated to do this?
Did he know the guy was an African immigrant? Does he know there is a distinction in behavior patterns between African immigrants and black Americans?
Perhaps he does know, and perhaps he is is merely acknowledging that his neighbors might not know the difference, or might not know that the guy was an immigrant?
Is what he said about black Americans ruining neighborhoods generally true? Is that his personal experience, or is that just accepted attitude? Does it also depend on the neighborhood?
Did he know the guy personally? What is the guy like?
Does he lament what happened, even if he holds these views personally?
This was a ripe moment. The reporter had a man who was willing to tell the truth about his views. What an opportunity to get the full content, to really explore the thinking and values of a man on the street and the background of what happened.
Instead, we get a cardboard cutout, because the reporter’s brain stopped working at the violation of taboo. Pavlovian response. Someone please explain to reporters what their jobs really are.
What a waste!
Seriously? You don’t have sound on your computer? Built-in sound has been standard in computers for at least a decade now. In the mid-90s, you actually had to buy a sound card to get sound but built-in sound became standard long ago. Unless you’re using a truly ancient computer I find it unlikely that you don’t have audio.
And I’m darned if I’m going to take umpteen minutes out of my day to do a friggin’ transcript for you so that you can comment on something you haven’t heard.
Sheesh.
Funny!
I don’t suppose it ever occured to you that A) His might be busted, or B) He might be at work were the sound on a lot of computers are deliberately disabled?
If A) is true, I would have expected him to say that it was a temporary situation; he didn’t say any such thing. There’s nothing to suggest he ever had sound.
If B) is true – and I can see that it might be – he could view the video on his home computer when he gets off work or at a friend’s place or internet cafe if he really wants to.
It would be almost impossible to reply to his original remarks WITHOUT providing a full transcript and that’s just an unreasonable request in my opinion.
If you disagree, you are free to generate and post a transcript.
Snarky, that was pretty good! I felt he had too many questions anyway.
My PC has sound, My significant other turns it off when she uses it.
I only notice when I need sound.
Check the sound button it may be turned off.
Elitist and ageist. Get over yourself and your “cutting edge.” As long as H. Sap can still READ, who except tech professionals truly NEEDS sound on their computer?! (I have sound on mine, but “need” to use it only once or twice every few months, and could easily do without it entirely.)
If “news media” is going to cover the “news” then they must give equal time to racists and the feeble minded. The reporter clearly doesn’t realize that everyone’s opinion is equally valid and it is not the job of the media to filter contrary voices, rather only to give air to whatever views may be expressed. If Fox us taught us anything, it is that bias in media is unacceptable. All views, be they Tea Party or Occupy, are equal and we must decide who tells the truth.
When you ask for any opinion you are asking for the respondents bias.
Leftist and media types are pretty stupid anyhow.
East Buffalo and Detroit – home of the new “urban prairies.”
It goes beyond fear of accusations of racism.
Most people do not want to hurt other peoples feelings. Deep inside black people have extreme insecurity, and nobody wants to hurt their feelings. It is a tough coversation to tell somebody that their ethnicity is ruining entire communities and even cities — Detroit.
White people value their black friends and aquaintances and do not want to upset that apple cart.
We use code words like inner city and low income communities.
Maybe God is just testing us all.
“Maybe God is just testing us all”
Maybe thats why he made Muslims.
As if he’s saying “OK folks, love your way out of THAT horror show, and I’ll be impressed”
But, if we could change the heart of pure evil, (instead of just killing them all) we would BE God then, wouldnt we….
Riddles riddles riddles.
(I prefer “bullet-riddled” solutions myself, but I’ve never claimed to be a saint)
Everybody can see it: drive, or walk around certain neighborhoods, or watch the real-life homicide detective programs. It’s easy to spot a bad and dangerous neighborhood. Nothing as crude as just the race of the people you see, or even what you’d call a slum. The houses often look like nice houses; you can imagine that not long ago it was a good neighborhood. Something has changed, and it’s not poverty. Everyone has cellphones, flush toilets, nice cars. It’s the atmosphere, the body language of the young people, the look on people’s faces. The police patrols, the graffiti, the trash on the street and a lot of subliminal signals that can’t be qualified. Unfortunately, one of the most glaring correlations with bad neighborhoods and crime are racial minorities, especially blacks. This is apparent on the visceral level as well as reinforced by the awful statistics. No, we shouldn’t judge individuals on their race (as liberals, in fact, love to do) but neighborhoods CAN be judged and everyone has a right to preserve his own neighborhood. It’s where he lives and raises his children and he doesn’t want it wrecked. It is one of the most important things on a person’s agenda: a safe, peaceful environment in which to live. I don’t think it’s right to judge people on their race, but you can judge them on the way they talk, the way they slouch, the gang colors they wear and the way they conduct business on the street corner. I don’t want a bunch of twitchy white speed freaks hanging out in my neighborhood anymore than I want any minority crack dealers or Asian gang bangers. And I have a right to say so out loud.
Kyle Rogers wrote: “John Langley, creator and producer of the TV show COPS bragged to conservative columnist Ben Shapiro that he censors black crime.
“Langley states ‘What irritates me sometime is critics still watch something and say ‘oh look they misrepresent people of color.’ That’s absolutely not true. Au contraire. I show more white people than statistically what the truth is in terms of street crime. If you look at the prisons it’s 60-something percent people of color, and 30-something percent of white people. If you look at COPS it’s 60 percent white and 40 percent, it’s just the reverse. And I do that intentionally, because I don’t want to contribute to negative stereotypes.’
“Langley boldly admits to censoring black crime for political reasons.”
http://www.examiner.com/article/should-race-play-a-role-how-the-media-reports-crime
Nice quote from Ben Shapiro’s excellent and highly recommended book… Primetime Propaganda.
Sunset & Night,
It’s not ethnicity or neighborhoods, it’s culture. A culture created by well-meaning liberals in the 60′s who started bribing young women to get pregnant. The democrats destroyed the existing religious/conservative black culture and have nearly destroyed the foundation of our society – the family.
I still feel that the progs visited upon the black community back then was an experiment to see if they COULD break up the nuclear family. They succeeded in urban areas spectacularly (black people don’t behave this way in suburbia).
Then they took it nationwide with women’s lib telling all women that their men were scum and selling abortion to the girls.
Still works great in urban areas – and probably in trailer parks. But rural and suburban areas are still family strongholds – for all races and it’s getting better – not worse.
The Democrats often act devilish, Lolly, but they’re not devilishly clever.
The Dems have been buying contituencies (the Irish vote got them Tammany Hall) since Andrew Jackson said “To the victor go the spoils!”, by which he meant patronage. That’s what the New Deal was about, exploiting a crisis to buy more contituencies (Big Labor) to cement Democrat dominance for a generation.
LBJ, the man who coined the phrase “uppity nigra” while he was filibustering Ike’s Civil Rights Bill in the 1950s, said gleefully of the Great Society that this would make blacks vote Democrat for generations. He was sticking it not to blacks, but to the grand old n-word-lovin’ party he’d fought all his life. “There goes your constituency – bought cheap, and partly with YOUR money!”
John Derbyshire
The interviewer WAS a kid – sounds like he’s desperate to distance himself from these opinions, that’s why the interview goes off the rails.
Lots of forbidden questions raised here. My grandparents moved out of their Cleveland neighborhood in the early 1950s, and shortly afterward it underwent what was called “blockbusting” – a house was bought by a front family of whites, who were actually working for some realtors, and a black family moved in, which made many of the white families frantic to sell before property values fell, which pushed down property values, and the realtors made a profit through wealth destruction.
This happened in the 1950s, when blacks’ family cohesion was stronger than whites’, when blacks were consequently UNDERrepresented among our population of convicted felons. The whole “blockbusting” scam was made possible by racism, that’s for sure. But was it just racism then, that a black family in the neighborhood lowered property values?
Or was there a cultural difference about neighborhood upkeep then? Junk cars on the streets and rusting in driveways, that’s the kind of thing that lowers property values.
But these are the kinds of questions that cannot be pursued because of what happened to Charles Murray over THE BELL CURVE. Remember Mario Cuomo’s bitter memories of his parents “moving on up” to a nicer neighborhood, and a delegation of WASPy women calling on his mom and telling her to keep the lids on her garbage cans? Sure left a mark on poor Mario, but happily it was a mark he could exploit.
Driving around a majority Italian neighborhood on Garbage Collection Day to see what we can see would be totally racist, though.
Is what the man on camera says true? Has the east side of Boston deteriorated because of a particular race of people? If what he alleges about the east side of Boston is true, is he still a racist?
He’s talking about the east side of BUFFALO, New York, not Boston.
Sorry. I stand corrected. My questions are still valid.
Detroit…Camden…. Washington D.C. ….. Newark …. St Louis …. New Orleans …. East St. Louis …. Chicago …..Flint …. Gary … Harrisburg …. Wilkes Barre …. Philly …. Memphis …. conclusions anyone
Bingo!!
Look at yourselves. You are sitting and doing exactly what the left wants you to do in order to silence us: Denigrating and casting aspersions on a man for his honesty because what he says falls outside of the PC boundaries and must be dealt with. The indoctrination by the left into the crap called PC has been so effective that we criticize ourselves and the left is laughing. Were it not for PC, then his answers and opinions would be allowed to stand.
I was raised in a small community north of Philly that went from white to predominately black in a short period of time. And it was ruined and yes we moved out. Sure white trash ruin their homes and communities, but I believe they learn it from blacks; and the moral of the story is that when you give everything to someone or in this case black Americans they have neither the pride or substance to take care of it. Exceptions noted.
So unless you have lived in this guys shoes or mine, STFU. Leave the left to tear us apart.
“Bingo” what, Blotto? How are we serving the Left by discussing a topic forbidden by PC?
As I pointed out in comment 19 below, Harlem used to be black and safe, so what happened?
“Sure white trash ruin their homes and communities, but I believe they learn it from blacks” This is so odd. You seem to be admitting that taking care of homes and communities is learned behavior for whites while implying it’s genetic behavior for blacks. (I say “seem” – I am putting words in your mouth, it’s true.)
Look, we learn to mow the lawn in the summer, shovel the walk in the winter, pick up litter from the yard and street in front of it year round – and we learn these things and why they’re important from parents, most often from dad. If your dad’s absent from your life and your mom doesn’t care, you won’t learn these things.
Studies have shown (see the work of Heather MacDonald at City Journal) that the overrepresentation of blacks among our population of convicted felons completely disappears if you correct for illegitimacy. Environment even has nothing to do with it: a black boy raised in a rotten urban slum – one who sees his father go off to work every day and come back – will have the same low risk of falling into criminal behavior as a white suburban boy with the same kind of father!
Illegitimacy’s the problem and it’s not just in the black neighborhoods where it’s on the rise. Illegitimacy’s poison for the society.
“For violent offenses, the arrest rate of African Americans in 1999 was 1,621 per 100,000. The comparable arrest rate for whites was 76 per 100,000 resulting in African Americans being 21 times more likely to be arrested for violent crimes than whites.”
Minnesota, 2002 Council on Crime and Justice Report. I think there’s a little more going on there than having a dad.
But of course African Americans are 21 times more likely to be arrested.
Doesnt say they the DID anything…
Just got arrested.
By Racists.
I do not think that whites “learned” anything from blacks about how to trash a neighborhood etc… The traits, or lack of certain traits (culture AGAIN or “the habits of the heart and mind”) of some groups lead to “bad neighborhoods” irregardless of race.
I would challenge the idea that a black Harlem was ever safe. Sounds like more hoping against hope that a safe majority black neighborhood existed somewhere somehow in the USA.
The issue is culture. Read Thomas Sowells books on this subject. In fact he makes the case that blacks learned it from the Scotch Irish – an ethnic group that is white but did not like to work, liked to fight, liked to drink, had an exaggerated sense of personal pride (sounds like the “are you dissing me” thing), had poor personal hygiene etc… what is the difference between a rough black ghetto in the US and a rough white ghetto in the UK? Not much past skin color.
C’mon, Rev. We know black Harlem was safe in the Roaring ’20s. If it weren’t, The Cotton Club and other jazz joints would not have been able to operate. It was safe in the ’50s, too – lots of talk in the culture then about going uptown for ribs and other delicacies.
Read more Sowell. Black neighborhoods used to be no more menacing, and usually less menacing, than white ones.
It was “safer” than it is today, thats for sure.
All cities were “safer” in the 20′s and 30′s than they are now.
The “worst” parts of any city 70-80 years ago were tranquil by todays standards.
But Harlem was a lot more dangerous then, than, say Manhattan or Staten Island of the same era.
Aggie, I conclude you should read Charles Murray’s COMING APART, The State of White America.
Also the works of new PJM contributor Theodore Dalrymple – lots of his wonderfully written collections of essays are available on Kindle for under $5. Try SECOND OPINION: A Doctor’s Dispatches from the Inner City – and he’s talking about majority white neighborhoods in Britain.
It’s culture, culture, culture.
All those places you name, they used to be safe. It used to be safe for everybody to go up to Harlem to drink in the jazz clubs. What happened? The Dems went hard for Cultural Marxism, for one thing.
Did you really mean racism as philosophy?
A tactic of statist totalitarians dressed in modern clothing as democratic liberals? To pull in, gull, the best and brightest. You know the “un” or should that be non-racist people from the most elite, exclusive and expensive universities and their troupes/troops followers heavily underwritten by the NOT best and brightest, “racists” underlings, commoners?
As against that original, creative, philosophy described in the two documents that truly CHANGED the world, with the HOPES embedded in for the dispossesed and powerless. Philosophy and principles witnessed with the “Conservative” documents the Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the USA.
The latter which the present Chief Executive of Enterprise USA deems “defective” to unlawfully with this troops in Congress and Judiciary amend – change protected rights of American citizens. Without their consent as required in that “Conservative” Constitution. Racism as one of their WMDs against Americans who do not readily comply with their depredations.
The Constitution details protections of Rights embedded as principle in the earlier Declaration. Even names, after details of organisational structure and instructions,a major section the BILL of Rights. The FIRST Amendment to that Bill protects FREEDOM~ of speech and thought/opinion – private and public.
The Rights protected in the Constitution are of individuals NOT groups.
That Constitution established as LAW so we do not “have to pass it to know what’s in it”. That Constitution available for review for anyone interested.
In simple language, few pages and direct in its statement of principles and permissible action.
We must assume therefore it can be understood even by the best and brightest,, star pundits, creative artists of entertainment and perhaps even by the “representatives of the People”. You know the commoners.
Jojo, you seem to be full of ideas, but none of them were conveyed clearly in this comment.
You cannot challenge the pieties of a society without incurring an angry, sometimes violent response. America’s race-hustlers have maintained their preferred pieties in the teeth of adverse statistical evidence, ferociously and sometimes lethally; consider the Watts and Detroit riots of the Sixties, and the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in the Nineties.
The de facto legal privileges and immunities awarded to American Negroes are the source of most of the trouble, of course. But here, too, we have a piety that few dare to challenge: the notion that because of slavery 147 years ago, the rest of us have a duty to coddle “persons of color.” If this piety is not overthrown, the consequences will inevitably include the destruction of a race. It would be uproarious if it weren’t so tragic.
You’re right. The Prime Directive of our current liberal regime is the celebration of non-White groups, aka “multiculturalism”, “diversity” and “tolerance”. Break that law and you will be treated as this man was, and worse.
The trouble with the Prime Directive is that, like all of liberalism -the contemporary egalitarian variety– it is rooted in the moralistic fallacy, believing that things ARE as one thinks they OUGHT to be.
The left doesn’t understand or want to understand that its model of “racial justice” ensures that the standard that is applied is one that prevents fairness from being meted out to wrong-doers. For instance, in the Trayvon Martin case, by trying to railroad Zimmerman, they may “get him” but they just perpetuate an abusive legal culture that will fall disproportionately on minorities. Regardless of why you believe minorities end up in court more often, the simple fact is that they do. Therefore any push for not handling each case fairly and factually without letting emotion taint it is invariably going to hit minorities hard (even if they deserve to be before the court)
Andrew, I love that you have the courage to be so honest about your opinions and what you see. And it does take courage to be so honest.
The poor guy has it half right: Blacks who embrace the so-called “black culture” (victimhood and oppression primarily) feel so entitled to “retribution” from other races and society at large, that they do, indeed, interfere with normal functions of society (crime, social services, etc.) Note though that the problem is cultural, not racial; there are plenty of blacks who could care less about the media- and politician-driven “black culture.” Just because a culture is unique to a particular ethnicity does not make it a racial determinate, and until society recognizes the distinction and deals frankly with the destructive culture, it is likely doomed to continue.
Setting aside the question of burning down houses, can anyone seriously dispute that yes, in fact blacks pretty much DO ruin pretty much every neighborhood they move in to? Are we allowed to point out that elephant in the room?
There are black families on our block. They don’t seem to have ruined the neighborhood. Maybe they’re a fluke, maybe there’s something more to it than just skin color. For what it’s worth, the white family that used to live next door seemed a lot more disruptive–loud parties, lots of vehicles, alcohol and minor drugs. We and the neighbors we talked with about it were quite relieved when they moved out.
It’s a numbers, culture and tipping point issue. No body’s suggesting a single black family comprises a culture or is bad. On that anecdotal level, anyone can be a jerk.
The interviewer has probably never been in any major city ‘hood.
The interviewee probably had a higher SAT score than the reporter, if he ever bothered to take the test.
Sometimes stereotypes are correct.
After Trayvon was shot, we were told not to judge people because they are wearing hoodies, covering their faces in extreme hot environments and low and behold those people are caught on video cameras doing criminal acts.
If you don’t want to be tarred and feathered by your brothers, then step up, as Bill Cosby did and tell the parents to get a hold of what is happening. Seem to recall that Cosby was shut down for expressing this opinon. As if blacks are afraid of success for their children, and don’t want to take responsiblity for their actions.
What a shame.
Looks like white supremacy is alive and well and making a comeback.
Do you guys prefer the term “racist” or “racialist?” Or maybe you’ve made up some euphemism for the disgusting bigotry you’ve embraced.
I am certain that Ed Drantand most of the channel 4 caucasian staff live in black neighborhoods.