Black youth in Mississippi town steals car of 89-year-old white woman, then beats her almost to death with brick

The headline from WMCTV (via Big Lie on Parade):

Elderly woman beaten with a brick outside her own Clarksdale, MS home

The first sentence of the story:

The beating of an elderly woman with a brick outside her home has rocked the city of Clarksdale, Mississippi.

The fourth paragraph of the story:

Stitches, bruises and gashes remain on Shirley Gordon’s face after she literally fought for her life while being beaten with a concrete brick.

There’s no human being who beat her. A brick beat her.

But wait—what do we see in the photo on the left? Is that a brick? Or a human agent?

Clarksdale%20perp.jpg Clarkdale%20victim%20Shirley%20Gordon.jpg

In the rest of the article, the victim, Shirley Gordon, tells at length what happened, that her car was missing from in front of her house, then she saw the youth driving her car, and he told her he had found it down the street and was returning it, and she foolishly believed him and offered to drive him home, at which point he jumped back into the car and began to beat her. But WMCTV never states the simple truth in its own words, that a (black) youth beat an elderly (white) woman with a brick. As far as WMCTV is concerned, it was a brick that beat her.

One final note: Let us remember that racial segregation, whatever its cruelties and injustices, existed for a reason—to prevent this kind of thing from happening.

- end of initial entry -

James P. writes:

You wrote:

“she saw the youth driving her car, and he told her he had found it down the street and was returning it, and she foolishly believed him and offered to drive him home.”

How is it possible that a woman born in 1923 in Mississippi can have the same suicidal ignorance of blacks as a young suburban Eloi? I feel sure she wasn’t raised on the feelgood nonsense and willful blindness that is taught today.

LA replies:

She was not raised on it, but in her middle and later years she was most carefully re-taught—by liberalism.

Mike P. writes:

This sounds like the British, who now use the terms “gun crime” and “knife crime”. So you can be a victim of gun crime or knife crime, and not a victim of any identifiable human group. The focus is on the evil instrumentality, not on the folks who wield it. It is a sort of demonic possession, as best I can figure. Once around a gun or knife one becomes hypnotized or possessed by its satanic influence and winds up compelled to commit a gun crime or a knife crime.

Theodore Dalrymple talked about this demonic control by gun and knife in his essays. He explained how the murderers he treated would tell their stories. At some point they would say, “and then the knife went in”, referring to the moment they stabbed the victim. A variant I have heard in my own life is, “and then the gun went off.”

Stephen T. writes:

Of course, this story will have white liberals enraged and probably up in arms demanding stronger laws against this type of thing. No, not the part about the brick that beat her. But this, at the end of the story: “Gordon plans to buy a pistol for protection.” Literally, some people will find THAT to be the most upsetting thing. And they are probably breathing a big sigh of relief that she didn’t have one to defend herself in the first place like that racist George Zimmerman. Thank God there wasn’t any gunfire!

Sarah Z. writes:

James P writes: “How is it possible that a woman born in 1923 in Mississippi can have the same suicidal ignorance of blacks as a young suburban Eloi? I feel sure she wasn’t raised on the feelgood nonsense and willful blindness that is taught today.”

I think I know why this 89 year old woman responded the way she did. Born in 1923, she grew up in the 1920s-30s during the period of segregation/Jim Crow in the South. Blacks were under the control of the dominant white majority culture and standards. They were expected to behave themselves or there would be certain negative consequences if they didn’t. And so they did behave themselves for the most part. This general cultural milieu encouraged and supported the black law-abiding, working class folks who were willing to try and make something of themselves, vis-à-vis white standards. There was no eminent physical danger from blacks at that time in the south. They were a part of the community and were expected to comport themselves accordingly. It would have been unheard of for this type of crime to have occurred in the world that she grew up in. Even as late as the 1950s-60s, in the rural south where I grew up, this kind of behavior from blacks was simply unheard of. So, I feel badly that she didn’t get the message that things have changed and changed drastically for the worse. As a consequence, she put herself at the mercy of a savage black criminal. I ask you, where would she have gotten the message that things have changed? She doesn’t read internet blogs. She only watches the nightly news and reads the local papers. I don’t think she would have gotten the message from those sources, unless she was especially insightful and able to read between the lines.

LA replies:

Very interesting. You have reversed James’ and my point. You may well be right.

David B. writes:

I second Sarah Z.’s analysis of why the 89 year old woman from Mississippi responded as she did. Segregation still existed in my childhood in the rural and small town South during the late 1950s and early ’60s.

I recall shopping trips in downtown Nashville and visiting relatives in Birmingham around 1957-58 where you didn’t even worry about black violence. For a time, I lived in a town that was 35 percent black, but it was completely segregated. You never heard of white people being attacked by blacks in this medium sized Tennessee town.

Terry Morris writes:

Correction: Let us remember that racial segregation existed for many reasons, among them to prevent this kind of savagery…

James P. writes:

I guess another VFR Rule (expanding on John Derbyshire’s original list) should be:

10(x) If a black driving your stolen car claims he found it and is returning it, don’t believe him and offer to drive him home. Or, more simply: Don’t believe anything a black driving your stolen car says.

M. Jose writes:

Honestly, that is one rule that probably does not need to be race-specific. Generally, if someone is driving your stolen car, it is not a good idea to trust what they say.

LA replies:

I would suggest two key points that I think you’re missing. One, it’s inconceivable that a non-black person, having stolen a car from the owner’s house, would then drive the car on the street in front of the owner’s house, and when the owner called out to him, claim that he had found the car and was returning it. Only black criminals, with their extremely low IQ, do such stupid things to inculpate themselves and then make up these wildly ridiculous, transparent lies.

Two, in the event that a white person did steal a car and then tell the owner he had found it and was returning it, the owner wouldn’t believe him. What happened here was a typical example of the extra indulgence that whites give blacks. Remember the story about the woman in the parking lot in Bakersfield, California. She thought the man lurking in the parking lot looked threatening, but she “didn’t want to seem racist,” so she proceeded to her car, where the man proceeded to kidnap her and rape her. If the man lurking menacingly in the parking lot had been white, the woman would not have had the fear of seeming racist and would not have walked to her car. It was the thug’s blackness, and the compulsion to give blacks the benefit of the doubt in order not to seem racist, that compelled the woman to act so irrationally and get herself raped.

And there’s a third point. These rules, while true and valid, also have a humorous side. By taking the specific circumstances of a particular story of whites’ amazing and fatal naivité about black violence (e.g., a woman’s car is missing, she sees a black youth driving the car on her street, she calls out to him, he tells he found the car down the street and is returning it to her, and she believes him, gets in the car and offers to drive him home, and he then beats her within an inch of her life), and turning it into a formal rule of a behavior to be avoided, I am dramatizing how absurd white people’s behavior is.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 20, 2012 11:46 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):