The latest black fashion?
, during a discussion in a bar, Lionel McIntyre, a black associate professor at Columbia University, got so annoyed at Camille Davis, a white university employee, because she didn’t agree with his views about white privilege, that he punched her in the face
, making a sound “so loud, the kitchen workers in the back heard it over all the noise.”
Today in the Mail it is reported that a black mugger, attempting to rob the purse of a white mother who was resisting him, punched her two year old daughter in the face.
- end of initial entry -
The New York Post article that you quote in the earlier entry says:
Police busted Lionel McIntyre, 59, for assault yesterday after his bruised victim, Camille Davis, filed charges.
The charge should be Assault and Battery, not simple assault. This is a Felony charge. If convicted he should do jail time, lose his job, and his pension.
The Post says:
The professor, who is black, had been engaged in a fiery discussion about “white privilege” with Davis, who is white, and another male regular, who is also white, Friday night at 10:30 when fists started flying, patrons said.
Note the implication that there is someone other than the black professor throwing punches, that this is a general melee, a bar room brawl. [LA replies: It is true that the media frequently relativizes wrongdoing, especially nonwhite wrongdoing, by equating the victim with the aggressor, for example, describing a “fight between” party A and party B, when in reality A attacked B. Fortunately, that is not the case here. The Post article, quoting witnesses, gives a precise description of what happened. It makes it clear that McIntyre suddenly hit Davis with “a sucker punch,” and then the other man involved in the conversation hit McIntyre, yelling, “You don’t hit a woman!” Then McIntyre was thrown out of the bar. So this is not being presented as a general melee. The Post leaves no question as to the fact that McIntyre was the wrong-doer. ]
According to Columbia University World Leaders Forum, McIntyre is currently the Nancy and George Rupp Associate Professor in the Practice of Community Development and the director of the Urban Technical Assistance Project at Columbia University.
The what? These are real postions?
He received his BA from Dillard University in 1987 and his MS in urban planning from Columbia in 1988.
So he is a non PhD tenured professor, at Columbia? How does that work? I have an MS, never could get anything but temproary adjunct work. Ferg
I missed that he doesn’t have a PhD. How then can he be a professor? Also, “Professor in the Practice of Community Development,” does not sound like any kind of academic field, but more like … community organizing.
To find out if our friend “Mac” has a PhD I looked up his page at the Columbia Graduate School of Architecture, and it has nothing but his phone number and his grandiose title:
Nancy and George Rupp Associate Professor in the Practice of Community Development
Maybe there are PhD’s in community development?
By the way, whenever you ever want to find the personal page of a professor at a univesity, here is the one-step way of Googling it:
“lionel mcintyre” site:columbia.edu
This way, instead of going first to the main univesity page, and then having to find the specific individual, which can sometimes be tiresome, you will get a Google result of his personal page at the university’s site.
Ron Tracewski writes:
It appears that the old segregationists were right. You cage an animal, not let it loose. Something modern conservatives can’t understand. Seems as if conservatives have this notion that blacks born on American soil are somehow just as American as the rest of us. Yeah, right! As the tip-toe-thru-the-tulips conservative would say, “But these are Americans, just as American as you or I, and their rights have to be protected.” Yeah, right … this species has to be protected while it’s maiming and killing us.
The south actually had it right (though you think otherwise). These are not people (though you think otherwise), they are not Americans (though you think otherwise), they are to be isolated, cornered and segregated (though you think otherwise). With the ultimate aim of shipping them back to where God had put them.
Don’t really understand why you would ship Muslims out but not these people. Oh sorry, I think I understand, a Thomas Sowell makes them all people, or is it your Christianity that says they are God’s children (who just happen to be dumber and more murderous). Yeah, your Christianity does really differ from the liberal kind … they’re your people after all, created in God’s image and American to boot (other Americans).
Normally I don’t post hostile comments like the above, but I’m making an exception in this case. The commenter thinks that because I don’t agree with him that blacks are nonhuman and should be treated as such, I therefore have a naive liberal or naive Christian view of race. But look at what I said, for example, at the time of the Knoxville Atrocity, about the need for society to place strict controls on blacks, such as existed under segregation (though I don’t approve of all aspects of segregation), and about the terrible consquences of letting go of such controls.
Posted November 21
Also, the baby-punching incident took place in England, not the U.S.
Ferg writes :
You say the following:
It is true that the media frequently relativizes wrongdoing, especially nonwhite wrongdoing, by equating the victim with the aggressor, for example, describing a “fight between” party A and party B, when in reality A attacked B. Fortunately, that is not the case here. The Post article, quoting witnesses, gives a precise description of what happened. It makes it clear that McIntyre suddenly hit Davis with “a sucker punch,” and then the other man involved in the conversation hit McIntyre, yelling, “You don’t hit a woman!” Then McIntyre was thrown out of the bar. So this is not being presented as a general melee. The Post leaves no question as to the fact that McIntyre was the wrong-doer.
However the aritcle as quoted on your blog says this:
The other patron involved in the dispute said McIntyre then took a swing at him after he yelled, “You don’t hit a woman!”
I read that as saying that McIntyre struck the other patron after that patron simply yelled You don’t hit a Woman. I do not see where it says that Sahnnon struck McIntyre.
“He knocked the glasses right off my face,” said the man, who would only give his first name as “Shannon.” “The punch came out of nowhere. Mac was talking to us about white privilege and what I was doing about it—apparently I wasn’t doing enough.”
You’re right. I mis-read it. Thank you very much for the correction. It sounds as though all the punches came from “Mac.”
Here is a comment from former VFR commenter Mark K., a Jewish convert to Christianity who has gone from being a passionate Palin supporter to to being extreme anti-black ideologue arguing that blacks are animals according to the Bible (maybe this proves that Chris Matthews is right after all about Palin supporters?), and who sends me increasingly hostile e-mails.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 20, 2009 01:25 PM | Send
Boy, are you ever afraid of Tracewski. What is it you fear about his remarks? That he will explode VFR through the power of his observations?
A further observation. Among unhinged people encounted on the Internet one of the tropes is that if you reject them or disagree with their view, it is because of “fear.” Thus no honorable disagreement with them is possible. You either agree with them, or you’re “afraid.”
He is absolutely right that blacks are not God’s children.
1. 1 John 3:9 “Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin.”
2. 1 John 3:10 ” In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God.”
3. John 1:12 “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God.”
Biblically people are not by default the children of God. If they don’t do his works, they do not bear his image. They have to “become the sons of God” according to the Gospel of John by receiving Christ. So let’s dispense with the criterion that blacks bear the image of God purely by being “human” and are his children when their works don’t prove this. Once this stipulation is removed, they can be viewed on the animal level as strictly biological entities lacking the necessary spiritual tools. Only a secular humanist (are you one?) will define everyone regardless of work and worth as a child of God without Scriptural backing.
People couldn’t see the obvious nature of the Fort Hood killings. Are you afraid of honestly confronting the truth of the black race—its ontology, personality, characteristics and historical standing? Open up VFR to an honest and penetrating discussion concerning the destiny of the black race insofar as it affects the nation.
[end of e-mail.]
Which by the way was the exact argument Michelle Obama made during the primaries in telling white voters why they had to vote for her husband.