Wednesday, 26 November 2014

Black Americans persecuting other black Americans

SHARE

Black people in the American town of Ferguson, Missouri, are rioting because a policeman who shot dead an unarmed black man was released after the grand jury ruled he had no case to answer.

This man's death was very unfortunate, but while people protest about one white man killing a black man, in self-defence the jury evidently thought, why do they not talk about the very large numbers of people murdered by blacks? There are far fewer American blacks killed by whites than vice versa, despite the fact that blacks make up only 13% of the population of the USA. 


Nor are blacks killed more often by the police. Interestingly, almost twice as many whites are shot dead by the police than blacks. Between 1999 and 2011 the CDC figures show that 
2,151 whites died by being shot by police compared to 1,130 blacks.
The following figures date from 2008 but are telling. According to the US Department of Justice, 52.5% of homicides were committed by blacks. The offending rate for blacks was almost 8 times higher than whites and the victim rate 6 times higher. 84% of white homicide victims were murdered by whites and 93% of black victims murdered by blacks.

Many white liberal Americans prefer to blame whites than blacks because sub-consciously they see the latter as Rousseau's noble savages, innately good. This is not true. Savages are not noble and the rioters in Ferguson are not protesting against communism but are looting and destroying. Yet well-off clever people consider rioting romantic. This is the story of the Scarman Report after the Brixton race riots in London in 1981.

Having written this I find that the politician that I admire most in the world, Rudy Giuliani, agrees with me.


It is depressing how many educated, reasonably intelligent people feel they can criticise the jury's decision in the Ferguson trial. Clearly only people who attended the whole court hearing are justified in doing so. It is, in any case, much better an innocent man goes free than a guilty one goes down. Had the policeman not been arraigned, as has happened many times when the police killed unarmed people in the UK, that might indeed have been scandalous but the grand jury (I wish we had not abolished them in England) sat on the case and ruled against a trial. However, the Federal Government may still reopen the case.


An oldster from the American South posted this comment on somebody's Facebook wall yesterday, which is worth thinking about.
There's that lynching thing again. We don't need any self-hating whites any more. We have the true nature of the beast on display right here. It is and always has been a fact that if a black person has been victimized the best place to look is among the blacks. Even during the civil rights days the biggest offender was the black community. The media only showed the atrocities of the very few radical whites. I was there and we did not have black folk swinging from every other tree but it sure was worth your life to walk through the dark side of town being black or white yet a black man might get the looks but he could walk through the white side of town without any injury. 
What is the solution to all this? I do not think that there is one. The problems are not caused by lack of religious belief or lack of will on the part of the American state to impose, on the one hand, law and order and, on the other, racial equality. 

I think it partly comes down to the fact that it is usually difficult for different peoples to live side by side. The more different, the more difficult.

It puts me in mind of something Thomas Jefferson said, which is inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial.
Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people shall be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live under the same government.
Actually, only the first half of this sentence is inscribed on the Memorial. 

The early 19th century progressives' solution, the idea of moving American freed slaves to Liberia, turned out to be a bad one. Overwhelmingly the  freed American slaves did not want to leave America and the few who settled Liberia did not intermarry with the natives but treated the indigenous inhabitants as coolies and regarded themselves as representatives of a higher civilisation, which, of course, they were.  I remember back in the 1970s people wrote about Liberia as the first free black African country, when it was in fact the last colony. The rule of the 'Americo-Liberians', the tiny elite made up of descendants of the black colonists, was only ended in 1980, by a military coup.

52 comments:

  1. Contrary to public perception, there are not many white people killed by blacks. Similarly, most blacks are killed by other blacks. I think the shooting is just the last straw - there are some general problems like racism, poverty, but there are also some specific problems in Ferguson - strangely the police is almost all white in a town which is mostly black, which is sure to lead to tensions. Here's a fact checker about this protest:

    http://www.politifact.com/.../punditfacts-top-fact.../


    Alex Alexe

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Alex
      You have put your finger on one of the key problems. The big cities eventually figured out how to recruit so as to match officers to the communities they patrolled.

      Perhaps we expect too much of Missouri, a former slave state?
      marc

      Delete
    2. Yes, crime rarely crosses racial boundaries in segregated communities - which is the case with white and blacks in most cities in the USA. In general, people are likely to be killed, raped, stolen from, etc - by people who they know. But we're more used to the idea of crime from TV where there is always some stranger lurking in the shadows...
      I think Ferguson has an incompetent police, which led to the escalation. You need smarter policing, old fashion, without cars - officers need to walk the neighborhoods, talk to people, find out what's going on, who's doing what, etc. This policing you see in American cities reminds me of Iraq "patrolling" - coming through, knocking down some doors, leaving, then the bad guys come back in, etc. It's never going to work. If you want to control a territory you need foot soldiers, a presence on the streets, or rather on sidewalks. Nothing useful can be done from cars - other than traffic stops.

      Delete
  2. Ah. The admirer of Chesterton and de Quincy high-handedly dismisses grievances in a long historical conflict by citing a rambling, borderline-illiterate Facebook post. I'm losing my religion here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not a fan of De Quincy, actually. GKC is wonderful but it is Belloc whom I love. And Dr. Johnson, Evelyn Waugh, Pope, Cobbett, Trollope, Cowper, a long list.

      Delete
    2. Oh, we know you're proud of your reading. Apparently it includes rednecks on FB.

      Delete
    3. I thought the old man had a very telling point. I read promiscuously, always have. Homo sum: humani nil a me alienum puto

      Delete
  3. Permit me one more thought on Giuliani: I respected his leadership during 9/11 but I dislike his pandering to the right on the national political stage. His remark about the prevalence of black vs. black killings does constitute a false equivalence (to white officers killing blacks) and unhelpfully diverts the conversation.
    marc

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marc I love Guliani for making New York safe. I wanted him to be president until I watched this. Please watch it, Marc - it is the FUNNIEST thing I ever heard in my life.

      Delete
    2. Why do people pander to the right, but no-one uses the expression pandering to the left? Just a question.

      Delete
  4. There are some redaction points necessary. The officer was NOT charged and tried. No charge was made. The grand jury hearing decides whether there is sufficient evidence to have a trial at all.
    :
    "...because a policeman who shot dead an unarmed black man was acquitted by the grand jury..." needs to be changed to
    "...because a grand jury declined to authorize the prosecution of a white police officer in the death of a black suspect..."

    "There are very roughly twice as many American blacks killed by whites as vice versa..."
    White on black murder=193 Black on white murder=448
    http://rare.us/story/white-on-black-murder-who-really-is-killing-whom/

    It is, in any case, much better an innocent man goes free than a guilty one goes down.
    Perhaps you are thinking "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", Wm. Blackstone


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I misused the words - grand juries sadly were abolished in England in the 30s. Yes of course I was thinking of Blackstone but did not want to provoke my readers too much. The figures for white-on-black murders are very interesting but for where in what timescale?

      Delete
    2. the cop could still be charged later

      ... if he is charged with murder there is no limitation - but "murder" would be impossible to convict on unless they prove his purpose that day was to find someone to kill

      they can still have a criminal charge of Violation of Civil Rights

      and there can be a civil case where the family sues for monetary compensation

      ... a moral victory at best since he will have no money

      Delete
    3. figures for 2011 - the link shows more detail

      Delete
    4. The family are considering bringing a law suit against the police department, which means that the city would have to pay up out of a budget which presumably is fed by property taxes, which unfortunately will have diminished as a result of the number of businesses burned to the ground in the riots. Ironic, no?
      Of course there are insurance companies, professional indemnity, spread the costs through higher premiums and enrich the lawyers. That's America.
      marc

      Delete
  5. 'Figures for 2011 - the link shows more detail' - I think you forgot to supply the link. It would be very helpful if you did!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Regardless of the facts of this particular case, the police are remarkably restrained. Though only 27 officers were murdered in 2013, 49,851 were assaulted,of those 29.2 percent suffered injury,31.2 percent assaulted at disturbance calls, firearms were used in 4.5 percent of incidents knives or other cutting instruments in 1.8 percent of the incidents. Other types of dangerous weapons were used in 13.9 percent of assaults. In 2013 officers shot and killed 461 felons. FBI - U.C.R.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you very much, Mark - these figures are for the USA, I find by looking on net.

      Delete
    2. http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2013-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted

      Delete
  7. I have just myself written about this subject. Rightly or wrongly, US blacks have a perception that they are victimised. That perception is real and cannot be ignored.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And it is in part because the American establishment and the ruling ideology sees them as victims.

      Delete
    2. Please post a link to what you wrote.

      Delete
    3. https://www.facebook.com/frank.gelli.1?fref=nf&pnref=story

      Delete
    4. Thank you, Frank. For the benefit of other readers I copy what you wrote below.

      My meditations on the Ferguson riots:
      NATION OF ISLAM 560
      In Ferguson, Missouri, angry black people are rioting, looting and burning. After a white cop’s acquittal of shooting dead Michael Brown, an unarmed Afro-American teenager. The nation’s black President Obama calls for calm – no one gives a damn.
      ‘Stop killing us!’ a poster says. Eloquent plea. So, what is to be done? ‘There is only one solution, separation’, I heard black school kids mutter aloud near Ealing Station this afternoon. ‘Excuse me, separation? You mean…what?’ I inquired, pretty surprised. ‘An independent state for us blacks in America. Like Minister Louis Farrakhan wants’, the astonishing answer came.
      Louis Farrakhan is the leader of Nation of Islam. An American fringe Islamic movement, with branches in Britain. In a 1997 outspoken interview to NBC Farrakhan stated his demands. Although his primary objective was real justice and equality for his people, he affirmed that if whites persisted in victimising blacks then the solution was to be apart. That meant a separate, territorial black state in the US. Like the Ealing school boys advocated.
      First, the problem is that a racial state gravely offends against the radiant notion of a multi-ethnic society. Maybe the most sacred benchmark of Western politics. It is impossible to see how any US government would ever consent to that. Indeed, the example of the Civil War suggests that Washington would resist any attempt to quit the Union with all military might. That is not to say that, deep down, many American whites may not fancy the thought…
      Racial separatism makes odd bedfellows. George Lincoln Rockwell, Fuhrer of the National Socialist Party of America, once officially attended, wearing full Nazi regalia, a Black Power conference that espoused similar aims. Rockwell warmly supported the project – obviously for rather different reasons. Had he not been gunned down in 1967, no doubt Rockwell today would applaud the suggestion of blacks going off to form their own polity.
      Second, a tiny difficulty arises concerning any proposed territory. Where could that be? Mr Farrakhan was not thinking of anything like Liberia – a rather lame attempt to return ex-slaves to West Africa. He had in mind, presumably, a state carved out of present-day America. Pity that fairy land would already have people – millions of them - living there. Would they leap with joy at being told: ‘Sorry, guys, you must vacate your homes and your properties in order to make room for new inhabitants’? You can imagine the reactions. Rioting – and worse – would break out on a scale to make Ferguson look like a Vicarage tea party.

      Delete
    5. Third, how many Afro-Americans would actually welcome the idea? What proportion of blacks would want to live in an exclusively racial state? It is hardly conceivable that anyone could be forced to go there. And Nation of Islam only commands the allegiance of a small minority. I cannot imagine that many, if not most, blacks would wish to uproot themselves to live in another piece of land, even one officially theirs.
      The example of Israel is instructive. It is a state for Jews. The Israeli cabinet indeed has just endorsed a controversial bill to declare the country a Jewish state.
      However, millions of Jews worldwide do not live in Israel and, pace Zionists, have no intention to move there. That being so, would the US black community really benefit from Mr Farrakhan’s project? Might it not entail a replication of the current divide?
      Fourth, Farrakhan apparently does not favour intermarriage between whites and blacks but the reality is that mixed-race children exist and their number is growing apace every day. Who would qualify as rightful candidate for life in the black state then? Would President Obama, for example? Academic question, of course, as the President has done jolly well in race-torn America as it is.
      No, I am afraid this idea of a separate black state in America is complete nonsense. Gobbledygook. Pie in the sky. Forget it.
      However, in another way Mr Farrakhan interests me. I kind of like him. I have to say it: his thoughts on sexual mores are impeccable and indistinguishable from the tenets of traditional Christianity. The family is a top value. Sex is for the procreation of children. No pre-marital or recreational sex. (Hurrah!) Abortion is discouraged, except in rare cases when the mother’s life is in danger. Members are urged to cultivate self-reliance, hard work and self-respect. Smoking and drugs are forbidden. Practices like farming and healthy cooking are recommended. All rather excellent. Should he perhaps be nominated as the next Archbishop of Canterbury? Nah! A bit too much of a stick-in-the mud, I fear.
      Still, there are odd bits, here and there. For example, Nation of Islam is said to sanction and cultivate a peculiar therapy called ‘dianetics’. Something invented by the founder of Scientology, Ron L. Hubbard. La samaha Allah! God forbid!
      I am a bit puzzled as to the precise doctrinal and theological standing of Nation of Islam vis-à-vis mainstream Muslim teaching. Certainly Farrakhan’s public image – he is clean-shaven and wears smart suits and a bow tie - does not match conventional notions of a Muslim leader. Maybe harmless eccentricity? Or Sufism? I leave it to my Muslim friends to judge.
      Years ago Barack Obama piously declared that there is no black or white America. Only America, period.
      Ferguson shows that, like in lots of other matters, the President was dead wrong.
      Revd Frank Julian Gelli

      Delete


    6. You remind me of Thomas Jefferson's words (only the first half of this is inscribed on the Jefferson Memorial):

      “Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people [the Negroes] shall be free; nor is it less certain that the two races equally free, cannot live under the same government.”

      Delete
    7. I decided those lines were so good that I added them to the body of the blog post.

      Delete
    8. Farrakhan is an old washed-up invalid whose cult moment happened in the 80s. He is highly irrelevant to bring up now and I would be very surprised if British students even knew who he was.

      Delete
  8. Another point of view. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/25/law-ferguson-verdict-not-justice-darren-wilson

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a pretty unpersuasive piece. There are, I am certain, very much better things written attacking the jury's decision but no-one who was not in court for the whole hearing is entitled to comment. I note it starts with a tweet saying 'the protesters got it' - does this endorse the rioters looting black-owned shops? Sounds like it almost does.

      Read this.

      http://online.wsj.com/articles/jason-riley-the-other-ferguson-tragedy-1416961287

      I quote from it:

      According to the FBI, homicide is the leading cause of death among young black men, who are 10 times more likely than their white counterparts to be murdered. And while you’d never know it watching MSNBC, the police are not to blame. Blacks are just 13% of the population but responsible for a majority of all murders in the U.S., and more than 90% of black murder victims are killed by other blacks. Liberals like to point out that most whites are killed by other whites, too. That’s true but beside the point given that the white crime rate is so much lower than the black rate.

      Blacks commit violent crimes at 7 to 10 times the rate that whites do. The fact that their victims tend to be of the same race suggests that young black men in the ghetto live in danger of being shot by each other, not cops. Nor is this a function of “over-policing” certain neighborhoods to juice black arrest rates. Research has long shown that the rate at which blacks are arrested is nearly identical to the rate at which crime victims identify blacks as their assailants. The police are in these communities because that’s where the emergency calls originate, and they spend much of their time trying to stop residents of the same race from harming one another.

      Delete
    2. http://www.vox.com/2014/11/25/7281165/darren-wilsons-story-side

      This one is interesting too

      Delete
  9. The evidence to the Grand Jury (party from black witnesses, partly scientific) was overwhelming. A violent criminal, by the name of Michael Brown, attacked Officer Wilson. Finis.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am sternly unsympathetic to policemen who shoot people dead without acting in self defence - and have made myself very unpopular with conservatives on this account. I even called for the American serviceman who killed Osama Bin Laden to be tried for murder, for goodness sake - but this story is about the American nervous breakdown about race, not about the facts. Someone on Facebook said it was about endemic American racism - it makes one wonder how much more anti-racist American society has to become to shake off this idea.

      Delete
  10. What some people object to is the races involved. I am indifferent to race. Supposing the races had been reversed - would that change things? If a black man was accused of murdering a white in the same circumstances would Rev AL SHarpton be leading crowds in the streets? I suspect not.
    George

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But in South Salt Lake, UT on August 11—a mere two days after Brown was shot to death—a police officer described as “not white” shot and killed 20-year-old Dillon Taylor, whose pictures (HERE, HERE, and HERE) reveal him to be at least predominantly Caucasian, if perchance not a purebred Nordic snow bunny. Taylor appears to be mostly white phenotypically (if not stylistically) and is far whiter-looking than George Zimmerman, whom the liberal press initially described as “white” for reasons that appear to have suited an agenda. And unlike the Brown shooting, there is currently video evidence of the Taylor killing available for public consumption, which should inflame white passions to the point where they’d riot—that is, if modern American whites were like blacks in the sense that they were prone to torching cities when one of their own gets killed.

      http://takimag.com/article/murder_by_cherry_picking_jim_goad/print#axzz3KEz8e7FC

      Delete
  11. I'm with Dyson. Please realize that this case is about conservative values; freedom, equal treatment under the law, and rule of law rather than of men. It's a Magna Carta issue.

    A civilian of any race murdering another civilian is a crime. The point here is that the murder of Mr. Brown SHOULD also be a crime, but manifestly isn't. Officer Wilson quite obviously lied under oath, and the prosecutor stacked the grand jury to produce the desired result, and for now, he walks free.

    Tim S.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let's just take the first lie - that's enough. Officer Wilson testified under oath that on approaching two men possibly suspected in a recent robbery of a shop walking in the middle of the street, he called out from his car, "Hey guys, why don't you walk on the sidewalk?"

    Police do not speak like this, and for good reason. They're taught to take control of situations. Not to play "twenty questions" with people in the street.

    "We're almost at our destination," one of the men replies.

    "But what's wrong with the sidewalk?" Wilson says he asks. There is literally no policeman on earth, apart possibly from some impossibly polite Scandinavian police department, which would address possible perpetrators in such a solicitous manner. Contrast that to Michael Brown's companion Dorian Johnson's recollection of what Officer Wilson said to them, "Get the fuck on the sidewalk." Now THAT is a policeman talking.

    So why did Officer Wilson lie about something so small as that? After all, no-one would really hold the more commanding tone against him. That's a policeman's job, after all. The reason is, that he and the prosecutor wished to impugn the eyewitness testimony. Therefore, nothing the eyewitnesses said could be correct, and a substitute theory had to be found for it all. And THAT is perjury.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/26/3597322/justice-scalia-explains-what-was-wrong-with-the-ferguson-grand-jury/

      Delete
    2. A grand jury is NOT a trial, and does not make a determination of guilt or innocence. They are convened solely to establish whether there's enough basis for a trial. In this case, the prosecutor clearly sought to discredit the eyewitness testimony and present only the police case, so that there would be no indictment. That's a clear manipulation of due process to obtain a desired result, hardly justice served.

      One might argue that the freed slaves should have been given their own sovereign territory, but that's a very subjunctive argument. They are a part of American society, and entitled to protections under the law. Whether they disproportionately engage in criminal acts is really neither here nor there. We don't grant other groups the ability to indict their murderers based on how good they themselves have been, or whether we can call the fire department based on how many traffic tickets we've received, or were divorced.

      And, if you look into it, it can be very difficult for the poor, black or white, to stay out of the clutches of the justice system in much of rural America especially. They tend to be treated much more harshly by the police than their more prosperous fellow citizens, and subject to numerous fines for minor infractions, if they fail to pay, are jailed or threatened with same. They are also required to pay court costs and interest on the fines, which can quickly turn into a debt trap.

      Delete
    3. I agreed with most of this but there is much that you do not say - black violence is not caused by oppression. The policeman can still be tried - and sued. America is lucky still to be a free country with habeas corpus, grand juries, freedom of speech, double jeopardy rule - though it is now in some ways very statist.

      Delete
    4. Black violence is not caused by oppression or poverty, any more or less than the Irish, Italian or Jewish Mafia was, earlier in the 20th century. That's an argument unto itself.

      The entire point here is that the local courts and police have the system rigged so that the policeman CANNOT in practice be tried, or sued, at least without Federal intervention, which is likely now, but only because so much noise has been made.

      I agree that America is lucky to have those things. The poor, rural blacks of Ferguson, Missouri would like them to be more evenly applied. They are equally outraged that no ambulance was called for Mr. Brown, and that his body laid uncovered in the street in plain sight for hours after the event, denied the basic dignity one would expect to be given another human.

      They feel that he was treated more like an animal than a person, and they have a point, especially in light of Officer Wilson's testimony, which goes to some lengths to paint Brown as a demonic, almost supernatural force. Which I feel is shameful, cowardly, and completely unprofessional.

      Delete
  13. Forget Ferguson, 244 Teenagers Have Been Shot In ... - Infowars

    http://www.infowars.com/forget-ferguson-244-teenagers-have-been-shot-in-chicago-since-michael-brown-died/

    While the events down in Ferguson play out, back in Chicagoland, HeyJackass reports that the same old bullshit continues day in and day out with nary a peep. In the 107 days since officer Darren Wilson shot and killed 18 year old Michael Brown – 12:03pm, Saturday, August 9th – the following stupidity has taken place in Chicago:

    155 homicides (74% black males)
    725 shot & wounded
    Six (6) 18 year olds killed: Kawantis Montgomery, Kamaal Burton, Tony McIntos, Alexandra Burgos, Rayvon Little, Johnathan Cartwright
    59 18 year olds shot & wounded
    29 teenagers (13-19) killed
    244 teenagers (13-19) shot and wounded
    10 shot (5 killed) by the CPD

    ReplyDelete
  14. My feeling is that they should have rounded up every last negro in the USA and shipped them all to Liberia. What happens after that is not our concern.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Disgusting racist above ^^

      American blacks do mistreat each other. AND white cops do impulsively open fire on unarmed back people too often with impunity. Both can be true.

      Delete
    2. I think the police in the USA open fire very often, probably much too often but I am too far away to be able to judge the situation. I pointed out that the police in the USA kill twice as many whites as blacks, according to the statistics. Unlawful killings are a separate issue from the colour question. I suspect that blacks are sensitive to possible racism while the police might simply be more fearful of blacks, but it seems that the police kill lots of whites too, so perhaps not. Violence seems an inescapable part of American life, alas.

      Delete
  15. Liberal Media Types Advocate Riots in Ferguson. I thought the comparison with liberal reaction to the Tea Party was apposite. http://legalinsurrection.com/2014/11/liberal-media-types-advocate-riots-in-ferguson/

    ReplyDelete
  16. Peaceful protests have taken place in NYC after the totally unnecessary chokehold death of Eric Garner. You can be on the fence about Ferguson and question the protests there, but the death of Eric Garner for selling loose cigarettes is pretty outrageous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is a tragic story but because the poor girl was white we do not hear about it. http://filmingcops.com/woman-shot-in-the-head-executed-by-cop-because-she-might-be-smoking-marijuana/

      Delete
    2. The poor, homeless people, the sick, women, the young, the disabled and mentally ill have all been targets for bullies who use their authority as cover for their violent impulses.

      Delete
  17. I don't understand all these right-on Ferguson protests in NYC Grand Central Station, etc. Don't US police randomly kill lots of innocent people OF ALL RACES all the time in Murica? What's so different about the Ferguson case? If folks en masse said "enough is enough!" well then that might be worth a mass protest. But just directing their ire into this single questionable case fuelled by Al Sharpton and all these other right-on idiots is kind of stupid IMHO.

    ReplyDelete