|
Notes from the Chicago Intifada, 2012
Paul K. (not Paul Kersey, as I initially posted by mistake) writes:
As summer approaches, the black intifada ramps up in Chicago. This past weekend, groups of young blacks rampaged through the downtown area, administering beatings. As usual, the media and politically sensitive police higher-ups sought to minimize the problem. Here is how the attacks were described by Chicago Police Supt. Garry McCarthy:
McCarthy said he knew of three downtown mob attacks over the weekend, including the Michigan man jumped on North State; a couple robbed on the CTA Red Line, and a man beaten in the Gold Coast area.
According to Second City Cop, a blog run by a police officer, the attacks are being undercounted by a factor of ten. He writes:
And for the record, the “three” “muggings” that are being “investigated?” Add a zero to that for incidents occurring last night in 018 [district].
Crime is down and if no one reports it or the media doesn’t get a hold of it? It never happened.
Here is a comment at his site:
it was the worst ever on mag mile. people eating outdoors at restaurants were getting bottles and stuff thrown at them. there were groups of hundreds “wilding”. hundreds. like packs of 300-400 beating , robbing etc. wow. just wow. i mean really wtf.
In an article in today’s Chicago Tribune, an Asian doctor describes being attacked by blacks Sunday night as he walked the four blocks between the hospital where he works and his home, through what the article describes as “the quiet and wealthy Streeterville neighborhood.” The doctor is reluctant to ascribe any racial component to the attack.
“I saw the mob of them … young teenagers, tweeners between 13 and 15 years old, like young kids you’d see at the mall,” the doctor said. “The thing I remember clearly was that they were enjoying frightening people. They went after a food delivery man on a bike. Then they went after me. It was like ‘Lord of the Flies.’
“And then they hit me with something, a hard blunt object on the back of the head, and I went down,” the doctor said.
Taken back to the hospital, he received treatment for facial wounds and received three deep stitches. “My wife’s upset,” he said. “There was blood, but it could have been worse.”
I asked about that elephant in the room: Was it racial?
“I don’t think it was racially motivated,” the doctor said. “They were black, I’m Asian, but I think it was something else. I think it was about having fun because they could … I’m not sure what this says. I don’t know where you would start. You’ve got to wonder why these young kids are out at 10 o’clock on a Sunday night.”
Discussing the attacks, a Streeterville woman was not so naive, but another neighbor was primarily concerned about “feelings”:
Some people, like property manager Peggy Wood, thought the mob attacks might be hate crimes. “Did they rob the victims? No,” Wood said. “It wasn’t about robbing. It’s about hurting. Just to beat someone up for the fun of it? I’m no lawyer, but I’d call it a hate crime.”
Others didn’t want to view it through a racial prism. “It’s very difficult to discuss,” said Tim Hunter, an insurance executive. “We don’t want to talk in racial terms. We don’t want to hurt people’s feelings. It’s just difficult.”
During last year’s epidemic of mob attacks, Chicago Tribune columnist and editorial writer Steve Chapman provided a remarkable example of liberal dementia as he explained why the newspaper doesn’t mention the race of the attackers:
Here’s my question about the teenagers who have been attacking and robbing people on North Michigan Avenue in recent days: Were they Christians? And if so, what denomination? Baptist? Catholic? Seventh Day Adventist? Those may sound like ridiculous questions. But so is the question raised by many Tribune readers about our coverage: Why aren’t we mentioning that the culprits are black?
There are good reasons not to identify the attackers by race. It’s the newspaper’s sound general policy not to mention race in a story, whether about crime or anything else, unless it has some clear relevance to the topic.
If a reporter goes out and interviews people about the weather, would it make sense for the story to say, “Joe Smith, who is black, is hoping for a cool front”? If a pedestrian gets run over by a bicyclist, should the story mention that the rider was white?
In the attack coverage, what difference does race make, unless police are putting out descriptions or sketches in hopes of getting tips from witnesses? Getting beat up for your iPad, I suspect, feels about the same regardless of the color of the thieves. Police don’t seem to think victims were targeted because of their race. And what good would it do to trumpet the skin color of the thugs? So pedestrians on Michigan Avenue can run away when they see two or more African-Americans? Lots of black adolescents and young adults can be found on the Magnificent Mile on any given day. I’d guess at least 95 percent of them are harmless.
My question to readers accusing us of political correctness is: Why do you care so much about the attackers’ race? If you fear or dislike blacks, I suppose it would confirm your prejudice. But otherwise, it tells you nothing useful.
A blogger who calls himself Angry White Dude responded to this editorial, writing in part:
[L]arge numbers of black young people are known to have caused EVERY incident of violent flash mob robberies and attacks in America this year and in the recent past. As for the innocent people who were caught in the middle of black flash mob violence over Memorial Day weekend, they most likely would have liked to know they were in great danger by being in close proximity to large groups of black youth. So reporting the race of criminals is of value to the reader and relevant to the story.
BTW, Townhall.com describes Chapman as a conservative who writes for the Weekly Standard and National Review. Obviously, he fits right in at those “conservative” venues. [LA replies: Chapman is a self-described libertarian.]
- end of initial entry -
Paul K. replies:
Well, then, another useless libertarian finds a home at the flagship of conservatism. [LA replies: I wouldn’t call him useless. I think his column in which he justifies the deliberate concealment of the race of the mob attackers in Chicago, and labeling as “racist” the people who want the truth published, is pure evil.]
By the way, Chapman writes of black youths: ” I’d guess at least 95 percent of them are harmless. This is exactly the same figure, reversed, that Derbyshire arrived at on his notorious Talk: “A small cohort of blacks—in my experience, around five percent—is ferociously hostile to whites and will go to great lengths to inconvenience or harm us.” Has Rich Lowry been informed of this?
Chapman also writes, “In the attack coverage, what difference does race make, unless police are putting out descriptions or sketches in hopes of getting tips from witnesses?” He overlooks the fact, often noted at VFR, that even when the police put out the description of a suspect they frequently choose to withhold his race.
Beth M. writes:
If Chapman had gone to law school, he would have known better than to say that 95 percent or more of Miracle Mile blacks are harmless, because it implies that up to five percent of blacks in that area of the city are NOT harmless. If that is true, and the number of blacks that one would see in the Miracle Mile each day would be in the hundreds, then no white person is ever safe going outdoors in that area, even to walk four blocks in a swanky neighborhood.
Kevin H. writes:
The comments on the Second City Cop blog are chilling. It seems as though most of them are cops, and they are not happy with the liberal media coverage. [LA replies: Perhaps we should call it the liberal media coverupage.] Reading those comments would keep me from going near downtown Chicago.
Paul K. writes:
Coverupage (kuhv-er-up-ij) n. In journalism, the deliberate omission of vital elements of a story in order to make it politically correct. An ironic variant on “coverage.” (See Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society.) First usage: VFR, 13 June 2012.
William writes:
Here is my critique of the Chicago Tribune’s writer’s comments:
The author makes several claims in his article: reporting the attacker’s race is ridiculous; race has no relevance in crime; if you fear blacks, you are prejudiced and wrong. He makes these statements as if they are absolute truths and must not be questioned. However, they deserve to be questioned for they are not held to be true by all.
He begins by saying that it is ridiculous to report the religion of the attackers, because, like race, those demographic characteristics are irrelevant. However, he is misleading his readers because he only discusses the attackers’ characteristics, which become relevant only when the recipients of the attacks are included. Reporting Methodists attacking other Methodists does not provide any insight and so is irrelevant. Reporting whites attacking other whites also is irrelevant. Reporting blacks attacking other blacks is again irrelevant. Reporting Muslims attacking Jews may be relevant and would demand further investigation. Reporting blacks attacking whites may likewise be relevant. So, reporting the race of the attackers and the victims may not be irrelevant. And it certainly would not be ridiculous, as the author is trying to portray. Therefore we must take into consideration both the attackers and those being attacked.
He further says that there are good reasons not to identify the race of the attackers, but gives no good reason. His reasons are as follows: not reporting the attacker’s race is the newspaper’s “sound” general policy; reporting the race is irrelevant. He tries to give examples of why reporting the race is irrelevant, but in the process of making a reductio absurdum argument and ridiculing those who have an opposite view from his, he creates a straw man fallacy with his ridiculous, exaggerated examples. Of course, one would never report that “Joe Smith, who is black, is hoping for a cool front.” That is so ridiculous, it reflects on the intellect of the author.
He also says that reporting the race may only make a difference when police are trying to get tips from witnesses. But reporters are not even doing that. He adds that police do not think the victims were targeted because of their race. On what basis was that assumption made?
June 14
Patrick H. writes:
Chapman says that covering the race of attackers is irrelevant? That the race of the victims is irrelevant? So if mobs of white youths (or Methodists!) went rampaging through downtown Chicago, the race (or Methodism!) of the rampagers would not be an element of the coverage? I doubt that.
Here is a set of examples of the application to various permutations of assault and victimhood using the real, i.e., unstated rules of race-blind Chapmanistic coverupage headline writing:
Black gang attacks black man: Black Man Victim of Group Assault
Black gang attacks white man: Man Accosted By Youths
White gang attacks white man: White Youths Attack Man
White gang attacks black man: WHITE GANG BRUTALIZES INNOCENT BLACK MAN
P.S. Agree completely with Paul K. on the kudos to you for the neologism—it’s a keeper.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 13, 2012 11:27 AM | Send
|