Another man (probably white) ignores Derbyshire’s advice not to be an indiscriminate Good Samaritan—and is kidnapped
John Derbyshire was excommunicated from NRO for advising non-black people, among other things:
10(h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
Some people just don’t listen!
From wdel.com, Thursday, August 2, 2012:
Three hijack car on Naamans Road, still at-large
A man trying to be a good Samaritan lost his car … and it could have been a whole lot worse.
State Police say the man was driving along Naamans Road in Claymont around 1:15am Wednesday when he saw a black female along the side of the road with what appeared to be a disabled vehicle.
When the man pulled over to see if he could help, the woman walked up to the driver’s door and pointed a handgun at him.
A black male, also with a handgun, walked up, forcing the victim into the back seat of the other car.
A second black male came up, jumped into the victim’s car and drove away.
The woman, with her accomplice and the victim in the backseat, drove away, ending up in the area of Edgemoor Road, where they forced the victim out at gunpoint and took off.
The victim wasn’t injured…. his car, and the suspects, still haven’t been found.
The car is described as a 2006 BMW X3, four door, silver with a Delaware license plate.
I would remind readers of Andrew McCarthy’s thoughts on Derbyshire’s dismissal, which most specifically would have applied to the latter’s advice not to stop for blacks in apparent distress on the highway:
We believe in the equal dignity and presumption of equal decency toward every person—no matter what race, no matter what science tells us about comparative intelligence, and no matter what is to be gleaned from crime statistics. It is important that research be done, that conclusions not be rigged, and that we are at liberty to speak frankly about what it tells us. But that is not an argument for a priori conclusions about how individual persons ought to be treated in various situations—or for calculating fear or friendship based on race alone. To hold or teach otherwise is to prescribe the disintegration of a pluralistic society, to undermine the aspiration of E Pluribus Unum.
I still very much look forward to Andy McCarthy’s further and more considered thoughts on these issues. Does he still believe, in light of this incident, as well as of numerous other incidents of black-on-white violence which he has been informed of since Derbyshire’s dismissal, that it is wrong for a white person not to stop for a black in apparent distress on the highway? Let’s put it this way: If the victim in this incident had heeded Derbyshire’s advice and not stopped, would McCarthy say the man had “prescribed the disintegration of a pluralistic society” and therefore that his behavior was unacceptable?
Also, I see that Derbyshire in his point 10(h) linked a New York Daily News story from April 24, 2011 about a Good Samaritan who was murdered:
Couple arraigned on charges they stomped an elderly man to death amid domestic dispute
A pair of lovebirds facing life as jailbirds were arraigned Sunday on charges they capped a boozy date by stomping a would-be good Samaritan to death in the street.
Quintin Guerrero, 61, was killed when he rushed to aid one of his accused attackers, Tosheba Alford, 20, after she jumped out of a moving cab in front of his Bronx house to escape a beating from her boyfriend, Alford’s mother, Queen Smith, said.
Alford told cops she never raised a hand to man who tried to help her, insisting she attempted to stop her boyfriend, Kendall Major, 35, from killing Guerrero.
Tosheba Alford and Kendall Major
David J. writes:
What amazing synchronicity! Since late 2011, I have been an avid reader of VFR because of the often brilliant social, racial, and religious analyses, though I sometimes feel they are too harsh. I have read numerous posts regarding the ever-present dangers posed by modern society and human biodiversity to would-be Good Samaritans. This evening’s events made me realize that I still struggle with this reality, even shortly after reading a part of your recent post about the hijacking incident.
A few hours ago, at a four-way stop near a grocery store parking lot, a gentleman in a car to my left nicely gestured that I drive forward. Afterwards, my lady friend and I parked and walked towards the store. The selfsame gentleman suddenly appeared, apprised me of his financial difficulties in a most heartfelt manner, and asked for money, after which I gladly complied. My lady friend, made a cynic from her life’s experiences, grew hotly irate and practically scolded me for at least a half hour for putting us in danger and being so naive. I should have, argued she, ignored the man or flatly rejected his request and walked away. I naturally defended myself with the use of warm biblical concepts concerning alms giving, meting out a good measure so that one will receive it in return, etc. None of these justifications fazed her and she resoundingly put me in my place on this matter.
We have had other disputes regarding my previous attempts at the Good Samaritan. I find it exceedingly difficult, almost gut-wrenching, to refuse the pathetic plea of a human in need, especially for a small amount of money like five or ten dollars. To deny a poor person such a trivial request hurts the soul and leaves one with an empty, cold feeling of despair. As with so many things, biblical concepts appear frustrated by the realities of human biodiversity, especially those concerning blacks. It almost seems as if blacks were not in mind when the Scriptures were written (such is merely a passing thought, not my stated belief). Why does the story of the Good Samaritan exist if modern Christians cannot act it out when the situation presents itself?
To practice any biblical precept without reference to common sense and practical reality is not intelligent. The man in the Gospel story who was beaten up and left helpless and bleeding on the side of the road and was helped by the Samaritan really was in terrible need. He was not a bum. He was not a hustler. He was not a grifter. But the man who approached you and asked for money obviously was a bum and a hustler. And, along with your lady friend, I am astonished that you could not see this and didn’t simply say, “No.”
Daniel W. writes:
I am astonished that you could not see this and didn’t simply say, “No.”
As well you should be. The commenter’s actions are not in line with the story of the Good Samaritan. Giving a street hustler money is a specious version of the Good Samaritan’s actions. It seems as if it would help—after all, the hustler’s car ran out of gas, he’s a few bucks short of a bus ticket, etc., and therefore he needs money—but unlike the Samaritan’s intervention, paying the hustler doesn’t actually help him because having no money isn’t his actual problem. His problem is that he lacks whatever essence keeps a man fully upright.
Worse yet, giving money to a hustler is contrary to the purpose for which it was given: he blows it on drugs or booze that make his life worse, not better. The more he uses the money that “Good Samaritans” send his way, the harder it will be for him to improve his lot, since drugging tends to self-perpetuate and get worse with time. Giving hustlers money is therefore like the story of the Good Samaritan only if the Samaritan had dragged the wounded traveler to an even more hostile place than the one where he was found, and then left him there.
Giving money to hustlers perpetuates the nothing that is their lives. They’re like animals, moving from one meal, one binge, and one scam to the next until the state takes control, or they die, or they are somehow made whole. The best thing that anyone can do is ignore them. Maybe—not likely, but maybe—that would drive them to seek actual, life-changing help from an authority capable of providing it.
“They’re like animals … “
Oh my gosh, by saying this, you have entered “morally highly dangerous territory” and “invited a grave form of darkness into your mind and heart.” Moral citizens will not be able to associate with you any more.
But the fact is, some people do behave in a fashion that can be fairly described as subhuman and animalistic, and as long as some people keep doing that, other people are going to notice it and say it. It can’t be helped.
Daniel W. writes:
Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 05, 2012 04:23 PM | Send
” … some people do behave in a fashion that can be fairly described as subhuman and animalistic … ”
And of course I didn’t write “animals” to be sensational, but rather to illustrate that these (nominal) people behave like ACTUAL animals behave, and that I imagine their internal lives are the same as how I’ve always imagined animals’ interal lives: utterly without reflection or self-analysis.
I can think of one example from my neighborhood. He’s a fat black bum in his early thirties (which is my age). He begs all day, and at night he falls asleep without ceremony on the sidewalk or a bus stop bench. I’ve looked at his sleeping face; it’s utterly untroubled. Does anyone really think that the same things happen in his head as happened in Isaac Newton’s?
Many people live this way. No higher purpose drives them. Each day to them is the same, like it must be for an animal. They are not driven to improve their lots or seek a greater purpose; they merely exist. Things happen to them. They get old and then they die. I think it begs the question not of losing the image of God, but rather of failing to strive for it in the first place. Or, if someone has lost this image, could he be made to see that he is deficient and scramble to regain it? Could I put a mirror in this big fat bum’s face and shock him into claiming his humanity?