September 21, 2007

Jena

As we saw with the Duke lacrosse case, there's a powerful hunger in modern America for tales of white violence against innocent blacks. So, on Thursday, the national media descended on the small Louisiana town of Jena as the Revs. Jesse and Al protested a racially charged case in which six young men stomped a high school student into unconsciousness.

Of course, things being the way they are these days, the protesters in Jena were on the side of the stompers, not the stompee.

A local minister, Eddie Thompson (who was one of the earliest critics of white racism in Jena), has posted on the Internet a list of everything the national media has gotten wrong about the Jena story. I've taken the liberty of rearranging it and shortening it, so go here to see the original:

- Jena does have racial problems. Jena does have bigotry and prejudice, just like every other town in America, perhaps even worse than some. If there were no racial problems, there would have been no nooses hung from a tree. There would not be one white student beaten and six black students charged with attempted second-degree murder. The local ministers would not have hurriedly called a meeting to deal with the issue. The cameras of the world would not have focused their lenses on Jena.

- The actions of the three white students who hung the nooses (on a tree at the high school) demonstrate prejudice and bigotry. However, they were not just given "two days suspension" as reported by national news agencies. After first being expelled, then upon appeal, being allowed to re-enter the school system, they were sent to an alternative school, off-campus, for an extended period of time. They underwent investigations by Federal and Sate authorities. They were given psychological evaluations. Even when they were eventually allowed back on campus they were not allowed to be a part of the general population for weeks.

- There was no "fight" on December 4, 2006 at Jena High School, as the national media continues to characterize the event in question. Six students attacked a single student who was immediately knocked unconscious. According to sworn testimony, they stomped him, as he lay "lifeless" upon the ground.

- Justin Barker, the white student attacked, was not the first white student targeted by these black students. Others had been informed they were going to be beaten, but stayed away from school and out of sight until they felt safe.

- CNN reported that there were "obviously no witnesses to the fight." In fact, over thirty eyewitnesses, students and teachers, were questioned immediately following the attack, all of who implicated one or more of the black students arrested in the case. In fact, some of the accused black students did not stop stomping Barker until they were pulled away from him by some of the teachers, according to testimony given in the trial of Mychal Bell.

- The media continues to make the point that Justin Barker "attended a party" later that evening, insinuating that his injuries were not very severe. The Barkers, by no means a wealthy family, face medical bills already over $12,000 from the emergency room visit. Imagine what an overnight visit would have cost. Justin Barker was advised to remain hospitalized but decided he would not let the event keep him from participating in the once-in-a-lifetime, traditional Ring Ceremony at First Baptist Church in Jena, where class rings are presented to the upcoming senior class.

- The fight on December 4 was unrelated to the noose incident, or any other incident that occurred earlier in Jena that week. The media keeps reporting otherwise. There are three different boys named "Justin" involved in three different events that the media have morphed into the "Justin" who was attacked on December 4:

A. A juvenile named Justin, whose name was not released to the media, was one of the boys who hung nooses from the trees in September.

B. Three months later, Justin Sloan, not a student at Jena High, fought with one of the black students, Robert Baily, at the fair barn when a couple of black students tried to enter a private party. The next evening, at "Gotta Go" store, Justin Sloan and Robert Baily confronted one another in the parking lot. There were two other black students with Baily. As they ran towards Sloan, Sloan rushed to his truck to get a shotgun, which the black boys wrestled from him and fled.

C. On December 4, six black students at Jena High School attacked Justin Barker, who is neither of the previously mentioned young men.

- The speech given by [District Attorney] Reed Walters that included the now infamous statement "I can end your life with the stroke of a pen" was not given to a group of black students. It was given during a speech to the entire student body in an assembly called by the school's principal to calm a community that was pulling their children out of school because there were two fights one day with racial overtones. Two girls, one white and one black fought. Another student was taken to the emergency room to receive stitches.

- The national news media has not mentioned a single time that there was an FBI investigation into the hanging of the nooses and the conduct of Reed Walters that concluded there was no criminal activity or "hate crime" involved. The report is available to the media, along with court records and sworn testimony, none of which has been reported.

- It has been reported that the school has two standards of justice since white students who attacked a black student were not treated as the black students who attacked a white student. No group of white students attacked a black student at Jena High School. Fights that have occurred have always been handled equally. This was not a fight. This process was taken out of the hands of school officials when the ambulance was called to bring Justin Barker to the hospital for the attack. Both the appearance of the ambulance and Barker's visit to the emergency room requires an investigation by law enforcement.

- The "Jena Six" have repeatedly been held up as heroes by much of the race-based community and called "innocent students" by the national media. Some of these students have reputations in Jena for intimidating and sometimes beating other students. They have vandalized and destroyed both school property and community property. Some of the Jena Six have been involved in crimes not only in LaSalle Parish but also in surrounding parishes. For the most part, coaches and other adults have prevented them from being held accountable for the reign of terror they have presided over in Jena. Despite intervention by adults wanting to give them chances due their athletic potential, most of the Jena Six have extensive juvenile records. Yet their parents keep insisting that their children have never been in trouble before. These boys did not receive prejudicial treatment but received preferential treatment until things got out of hand.

- The entire black community of Jena is not being heard in this controversy, just the parents, relatives, and close friends of the Jena Six. The black community of Jena has not been involved in the protests and demonstrations called by national race-based organizations. Some state and national race crusaders have chastised them for not "rising up" with the parents to force law enforcement to "free the Jena Six." Many do agree that the charges seem wrong, but they also know the criminal history of the boys referred to as the "Jena Six." It is their neighborhood these boys have terrorized. Not even all of the parents claim that these boys should be set free with no consequence for their actions. One of the parents was interviewed, saying that the boys should suffer the fair punishment for their actions. He suggested that simple battery would be an acceptable charge. With one exception, the local black pastors do not support the demonstrations. They have been openly criticized for their lack of cooperation with the national race crusaders. One of them counseled the "Jena Six" families to not stir controversy for controversy's sake. The black pastor was openly condemned by a local radio personality sympathetic to the cause of the black parents. The rhetoric grew so intense that the black pastor was referred to as Reed Walter's "house Negro" on the local radio talk show. The pastor is consistently accused on this show of working in cooperation with Reed Walters in a plot to undermine the "Jena Six."

Conclusion:

To Reed Walters: Charge these young men with the crimes of which they are guilty.

To The Parents: Hold your children accountable for their actions.

To The White Community: Stop claiming, "There is no racism here" or "We have no problems here." Live by the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. If twelve percent of our community is feeling estranged, we should listen to their grievances.

To The Black Community: If you believe these six black students are innocent, we can "free the Jena Six" today by having the black students, who thirty witnesses testify attacked Justin Barker, step forward and take responsibility for their actions.

To The National Media: Please, get it right. Report the facts. Let them take you to the truth. Stop making Jena, Louisiana, a national scapegoat for America's sin of racism.

To America: Judge not unless you be judged. You will be judged by the same measure you judge this little town. Until you know the facts, reserve judgment. Do no believe everything you see on TV.

My published articles are archived at iSteve.com -- Steve Sailer

82 comments:

Roach said...

I've had a ton of stuff on this at http://www.mansizedtarget.com. Of course, it attracted some of the most lovely commenters.

Evil Sandmich said...

Once I saw the Rev up there I figured the 'Jena' story was at least 50% pull.

I feel bad for the seemingly handful of blacks who think correctly that the glorification of poor behavior is ruining their communities.

Anonymous said...

Excellent post. Once again, the MSM gives us misinformation instead of the truth.

Joe Populist said...

Thank God for Steve Sailor to ferret out these things for us.

PS, I'm sad you're not posting to
your website any more. It was a great format, and easier to read then the blog format.

Anonymous said...

Good summary, but why does the Rev. lecture whites on racism and the golden rule?

Blacks are beating whites unconscious in gang attacks, jumping whites at gas stations and marching 40,000 strong for black kids who tried to kill a white child.

Whites in Jena are targeted for beatings, afraid to go to school and have boarded up their houses and left town during the rallies.

I am no Christian but it seems that blacks need the lectures on racism and the golden rule.

Anonymous said...

Excellent take on this story here.
http://averagebro.blogspot.com/2007/09/averagebro-blogs-live-from-jena-la.html

Anonymous said...

They wanted hate crime charges for the kids that hung a noose but did no physical harm, and the six thugs who beat the white kid senseless? That's just some kids having some playground fun.

The only strange thing here is not black's inherent racism and profound unfairness but that there are still whites stupid and naive enough to support them.

Anonymous said...

Which presidential candidate might this most help?

Anonymous said...

Bravo to the minister. We need more like him.

Anonymous said...

After the disgraceful MSM treatment of the Duke rape hoax, who now has any confidence that they will get this one right?

Andy said...

The most significant factor in this whole incident was the fact that the boys were charged with attempted murder, which you only indirectly addressed. Everything else is static - without the attempted murder charges, it would've have garnered all the attention it did. Why did you put it at the end of your piece as an afterthought, instead of immediately addressing it? Again, you blame the media, as usual. Clearly, you're the one with the agenda.

Anonymous said...

One thing not mentioned in the media is that the 'noose' incident took place September 1, 3 months before the beating.

Luke said...

Keep the facts coming. Wouldn't it be nice if the NYT's did an honest, well-researched backgrounder on the story? Maybe title it: "A Case of Mistaken Identity," or something like that.

Anonymous said...

To me, I believe the 'Jena 6' should be held accountable for the attack on Justin Baker and not set free, but they should all be held accountable as juveniles, as they are all kids...immature and full of anger. The federal governemtn might not interpret the nooses as a hate crime because they cannot link the 3 students to a specific group, but regardless of a federal government label, the 3 students should have been expelled.

concerned citizen said...

To me, I believe the 'Jena 6' should be held accountable for the attack on Justin Baker and not set free, but they should all be held accountable as juveniles, as they are all kids...immature and full of anger. The federal government might not interpret the nooses as a hate crime because they cannot link the 3 students to a specific group, but regardless of a federal government label, the 3 students should have been expelled.

tommy said...

You should have seen Soledad O'Brien on CNN the other day; she was practically foaming at the mouth over this case. She just couldn't figure out why a few students placing nooses on a tree wasn't treated as serious a crime as that committed by a group of people beating, kicking and stomping another person. She was truly mystified. The media's veneer of objectivity has been paper-thin in reporting this story even by today's base standards. CNN, MSNBC, and the wire services have been making comparisons between the Civil Rights marches of the 60s and the Jesse Jacksonites that descended upon Jena yesterday. The poverty pimps and their minions weren't alone, however: joining them was the usual smattering of guilty white liberals from around the nation whose daily contact with low-income minorities is likely otherwise limited.

I certainly think the prosecutor seriously overreacted in bringing attempted murder charges in an assault and where the victim was able to leave the hospital in a matter of hours (though in pain and with vision problems for the next few weeks), and where the victim may have taunted one of the perpetrators (this is disputed). Now that the attempted murder charges have been dropped I don't see what people can complain about. If guilty, these delinquents should all be sentenced for assault.

Complaints by blacks about the all-white jury in the Bell case are amusing. The jury pool originally summoned 150 citizens both white and black. Fifty people showed up but not a single black answered the summons. Alas, if only there were as many blacks as willing to perform basic civic duties as there are to parade around protesting racial injustice....

bjdouble said...

This is how the post reporter responds to the connection between the incidents:

St. Louis: You are simply reporting things as factual that are not true. The truth is the victim was not involved in the noose incodent, the FBI did investigate the noose incident and the U.S. Attorney could not find enough evidence to bring hate crime charges, and three months passed between the noose incident and the assault -- the linkage is hardly clear. Please comment.

Darryl Fears: Where are your facts. The U.S. Attny. never investigated the case. In fact, at a community forum in Jena, he said he didn't act because there was no police report. The noose incident happened in September, raising tensions. During those tense months between September and December, a wing of the high school was burned and there were several fights, some involving guns. You can say the events have no connection. But black residents in Jena believe otherwise.

Ron Guhname said...

These kinds of incidents reveal the power of race. You've got young thugs terrorizing your neighborhood, but if there is any indication of lack of fairness by whites, then (some) people are happy to give the thugs a pass if they can stick it to the White Man.

It reminds me how the plant where my Dad worked was shut down because it was located on a reservations, and tribal leaders got too greedy. They preferred to lose millions of dollars and dozens of jobs rather than let the White Man get off too easy.

Blacks (and other groups) will slit their own throats if it musses the White Man's hair.

Svigor said...

The most significant factor in this whole incident was the fact that the boys were charged with attempted murder

Sounds reasonable to me. He was on the ground, unconscious, and they were group-stomping him.

What do you think their intent was? Attempted warm and fuzzies?

The funny thing about laws (in the present context) in former Jim Crow areas is that the lynching laws were designed to protect blacks. Now they're disproportionately used against them, because of their obvious predisposition toward mob violence.

Schadenfreude all over the place.

Anonymous said...

We're being "Duked".

Why is this being fabricated into a huge story while the real story of the kidnapping, rape, and torture of that black woman is virtually ignored? As was the murder of those three black college students once the killers were found out to be illegal aliens. The latter two crimes were real and perpetuated by members of the opposite race.

These aren't rhetorical questions, I really don't know.

Anonymous said...

CNN is now reporting this story as the "Noose Incident" ...

In the recent Knoxville double rape murder dismemberment and body burning of two whites by a gang of blacks -- the press called it a "Carjacking Incident".

FACT: About 25% of lynchings in the history of the United States involved white victims.

FACT: The worst mass lynching in the United States was of Italian-Americans.

Why exactly is kicking someone until unconscious not attempted murder?

It is reasonable to assume that while kicking the white victim until unconscious one or more of the black perps was shouting "kill the motherbleeper" and not "knock the motherbleeper out". After they knocked him unconscious they continued to kick the victim.

If the perps were white and the victim black, the MSM would likely call the same beating attempted murder without any qualms, reservations or hesitation.

tommy said...

I've had a ton of stuff on this at http://www.mansizedtarget.com. Of course, it attracted some of the most lovely commenters.

Thanks. I've added your blog to my list. I particularly like the commentator on your blog who argues that the Jena Six should not do jail time since Paris Hilton got such a light sentence on DUI. LMAO.

Anonymous said...

I thought "hate crimes" were only supposed to enhancements to an underlying real crime such as assault; I don't see how hanging a noose from a tree on public property can even be construed as vandalism. I can recall seeing nooses displayed on private property during Halloween season-were these homeowners possibly guilty of "hate crimes"?

Anonymous said...

Blacks (and other groups) will slit their own throats if it musses the White Man's hair.

Though the white male is clearly the favorite target, anyone who can be labeled as someone who gives offense to those who are given special status by affirmative action policies can face dire consequences. I'm still looking, however, for someone who isn't white and isn't covered by some form of affirmative action. And let's not forget all those subgroups of whites who are more equal than the rest of us.

What's going on in La is frightening instead of annoying though. Now that the Jena 6 have become media (jackson & sharpton) darlings the violence there is bound to spread. People hear what they want to hear and believe what they want to believe which in effect gives the loudest liar the most influence.

Can Jackson & Sharpton be sued for inciting violence?

Fred said...

Check out Jason Whitlock's take on this: Lessons from Jena, LA. Steve might be interested to know there may be an affirmative action angle here (the incompetent black public defender) Here's an excerpt:

"Justin Barker, the white victim, was cold-cocked from behind, knocked unconscious and stomped by six black athletes. Barker, luckily, sustained no life-threatening injuries and was released from the hospital three hours after the attack.

A black U.S. attorney, Don Washington, investigated the “Jena Six” case and concluded that the attack on Barker had absolutely nothing to do with the noose-hanging incident three months before. The nooses and two off-campus incidents were tied to Barker’s assault by people wanting to gain sympathy for the “Jena Six” in reaction to Walters’ extreme charges of attempted murder.

Much has been written about Bell’s trial, the six-person all-white jury that convicted him of aggravated battery and conspiracy to commit aggravated battery and the clueless public defender who called no witnesses and offered no defense. It is rarely mentioned that no black people responded to the jury summonses and that Bell’s public defender was black."


BTW, if you didn't click on the link, Jason Whitlock is black.

C. Van Carter said...

Military bogged down in no-win foreign war, dollar down, looming recession, liberal politicians defending black criminals...hey it's the return of the 70's! What's next, polyester leisure suits?

Muswell Hillbilly said...

A few hours ago, I was at the gym and they had CNN on one of the TVs they put near the machines. It was muted, so I didn't get the audio, but they were talking about the whole "Jena 6" thing, and for more than a couple minutes they were showing websites that looked like message boards and/or blogs with banners and images of swastikas and other white supremacist symbols. A few marginalized yahoos in cyberspace are apparently deemed the most relevant thing to talk about regarding this case.

Of COURSE. So very predictable. So despicably dishonest. The media are scum.

John said...

This is the doing of the left choosing issues so as to bi position to try to smear opponents as expressing only racial hatred. There is no rational argument for an increase in freedom-for-aggresion. The black man's freedom-for-aggression should not be protected in the least, much less made the object of an unspeakably depraved state religion. The government schools have to go, they are hopelessly given over to racialized worship of freedom-for-aggression, and when they fall, down will go the left with them.

Ibrahim Nur said...

quote: "The most significant factor in this whole incident was the fact that the boys were charged with attempted murder"

Hear hear. It is NOT an issue that the boys deserve punishment. It is NOT an issue that they acted wrongly in ganging up on a white kid. What's an issue is the SEVERITY OF THE PUNISHMENT handed to them. Attempted murder? That's worth marching over, and anyone who says otherwise must have an agenda.

And please save me the rational that the boys must've been intending to kill him since they kicked him in the head. You can't know that, and it isn't likely something they'd do in public in front of an untold number of eyes if that was truly their intention.

Steve Sailer said...

That was a preliminary charge -- the _actual_ charge in the trial of the first of the Jena 6 was 2nd Degree Aggravated Battery. Is _that_ so disproportionate?

Anonymous said...

The MSM clearly has an agenda. The main components are roughly 1) diabolization of white males 2) infantilization of blacks, women etc 3) obsequiousness towards all things Jewish.

Anonymous said...

Ibrahim Nur --

I can't speak to the Jena 6 thugs who did in public, in front of more than thirty witnesses, attack a single boy (six on one), knock him unconscious, and continue to kick him while he was unconscious until pulled off by teachers and students.

BUT it is a matter of public record that gang thugs can and do kill people in public. Black or Latino, they do this to make a statement. Of power. They face little to no consequence. Witnesses are too vulnerable and intimidated, and successful killings demonstrate the gangs power.

In LA for example, MS-13 controls most of the Mid-Wilshire district to Downtown.

One of the unhappy experiences of the South in recent years is the influx of LA or LA-inspired gangsters. Six-on-one to me seems it *could* be gang-related.

Certainly the assault was a statement. Of power. Of who has it, and who will use it. Don't think gangs are about anything but the use of power to extract money from people.

[The one thing you can say about white teens is that they rarely form gangs and those that are formed are short-lived and small.]

Bill said...

I don't see attempted murder as excessive. Some of you may remember an incident that happened in my neck of the woods a few years back.

Do the Mardi Gras riots in Seattle in 2001 ring a bell? A young man, Kris Kime, was beaten to death for trying to help a young woman who was being assaulted. He was hit from behind, knocked to the ground, and then stomped repeatedly. He died hours later from bleeding and swelling of the brain.

I wonder how many people in the media and in general who are commenting on the case have ever witnessed this kind of attack. A gang beating someone down and then stomping them clearly is acting in a murderous manner. Trust me on this one. It takes some very serious malicious intent to stomp on an unconscious person's head. The only time I ever knocked a guy out cold (aside from sports), when I was the victim of an attempted carjacking, I called the ambulance as soon as I realized he was unconscious, and I sure didn't have much sympathy for him at the time.

If, as in Kris Kime's case, there hadn't been anyone to intervene, there's a good chance Justin Barker's life would have ended that day.

Attempted murder is an entirely appropriate charge.

Roger Chaillet said...

Why mention only Jena?

Remember the anthrax "attacks" in Washington, DC? The purported assailant in the case - a white male by the name of Dr. Steven Hatfill - was allegedly a former member of a right wing, paramilitary death squad from Zimbabwe.

And the DC victims?

Blacks.

The MSM was in hysterics over the case because it involved "racism," power, alleged right wing death squads in the hated former Rhodesia, and the victim status of blacks.

Left unmentioned was the fact that the alleged perp was never charged with a crime; he was instead labeled a "person of interest." His career and life were destroyed by the Bush administration.

And the DC victims?

All beneficiaries of affirmative action. The express policy of the federal government is to hire nothing by racial minorities if at all possible.

Anonymous said...

Steve:
"That was a preliminary charge -- the _actual_ charge in the trial of the first of the Jena 6 was 2nd Degree Aggravated Battery. Is _that_ so disproportionate?"

Louisiana state law says that in order for an assault to be classified as "aggravated," it has to be with a deadly weapon. The weapon in this case? The students' shoes! Now, if the students had taken _off_ their shoes and used them to beat Mr. Barker, then the court may have a point. But a shoe, by itself, on a foot, is not a deadly weapon. The state was obviously _looking_ for a way to lock these young men up for a very long time.
In any case, in my opinion, hanging nooses from a tree is a VERY serious crime, is especially in the heart of the CSA (Cracker States of AmeriKKKa). It upsets me very much to see so many whites say, "Yes, hanging nooses from a tree is something that probably shouldn't have been done, but its not that big of a deal and it can't excuse or explain the beating that later took place." For Blacks, especially in the Deep South, nooses are a VERY big deal. I don't care if the FBI investigated it or not. The three students who pulled this "prank" were making murderous, even borderline genocidal threats, and they ought to be treated by the criminal "justice" system as such. It is in my opinion, much more serious than the beating of Justin Barker, who allegedly was making loud racial taunts before his whooping. He says he doesn't remember this, but neither would I if I had been kicked in the head. Im not excusing the behavior of these six boys, but the bias of the Louisiana "justice" system is blatant in this case.

David said...

Not allowed in "the general population" of the school.

Principal: "I can end your life with the stroke of a pen."

School = prison.

Did Beaver Cleaver face these problems? Did his real-life equivalents circa 1950? Er...no.

Yes, Jena has a racial problem. All of America does. GLUG GLUG! What's that sound? It's America circling the drain! GLUG GLUG!

Putting your kids in "the general population" of public school is child abuse.

David said...

Beating someone nearly to death is no big deal. After all, the beating wasn't done in socks.

But displaying a noose - that deserves the death penalty!!

Actions? Who cares about actions? But ideas! THOSE are what should be criminalized!

Why? Because I FEEL bad when certain people express their ideas! My feelings should be the criterion of what is and isn't legal.

Tell me again how blacks understand the principles of political liberty that so many have taken such pains to extend to them?

Anonymous said...

"The three students who pulled this "prank" were making murderous, even borderline genocidal threats, and they ought to be treated by the criminal "justice" system as such."

Borderline genocidal? You know it's very easy to find a reason why some symbolic act should be treated as a death threat. However, despite how offensive the noose hanging from the tree might be, it in no way implied that those students intended to kill someone.

You can't interpret laws or make laws so that one group of people i.e. blacks has a whole set of rules that apply to them and only them. As you ought to be able to see, our immigration policies towards Hispanics are yet another manifestation of this trend. We have whole countries full of people who want preferential treatment, in a different way than blacks, but preferential treatment nevertheless. Where does it end?

This tit-for-tat I see with regards to how blacks are treated in the justice system has got to stop. You want the charges ratcheted up for the noose incident and lessened for the kicking incident to the point that they become equal in severity but these are two completely different offenses.

As far as the Jena 6 being charged with a much more severe crime than the one you say you could prove by legal definition, I don't think this has anything to do with whites and blacks being treated differently in the justice system. I don't like the practice any more than you do but it is common in this country. I'd ignore the noose incident as a comparison crime if I were you. What lawyers do is find cases similar to the one that's being argued. This practice of finding a white person or group of white people from the area who have committed some offense and using to prove racial bias is nothing more than inflammatory. The comparison crime has to be as similar as possible in order to be relevant.

Not too long ago, black activists in Houston thronged the courtroom for the trial of several white girls who had committed armed robberies to ensure they didn't get preferential treatment. No matter what their intent, these activists had no right to interfere with the case. Yet there were fears they might riot if they didn't like how the case was resolved - a case that didn't involve any blacks whatsoever.

What purpose can tactics like these possibly serve? The process of arguing a case doesn't change. Letting blacks get away with destroying property or beating people up because they are angry about a legal system that no one else likes either, isn't going to solve the problem.

With the tensions that have mounted in La, I can almost guarantee that any white families who can afford it will either send their children to private school or move next year. You can't blame them for their very real fears of the threat of retaliation but Jena will be left as a more not less segregated town as a result. Is this what you want?

Anonymous said...

"For Blacks, especially in the Deep South, nooses are a VERY big deal."

For whites, especially in the Deep South, getting kicked in the head by six people while unconscious is a very big deal.

Unfortunately, we don't march in the streets for our rights. We just move away from the racist head kickers.

Anonymous said...

After its humiliation with the Duke case, it's pretty obvious that the race-racket sees this as its chance to regain the offensive. So what if it's now reduced to taking to the streets to defend a half-dozen cowardly thugs who obviously committed a crime but the DA overcharged them.

Muswell Hillbilly said...

Louisiana state law says that in order for an assault to be classified as "aggravated," it has to be with a deadly weapon. The weapon in this case? The students' shoes! Now, if the students had taken _off_ their shoes and used them to beat Mr. Barker, then the court may have a point. But a shoe, by itself, on a foot, is not a deadly weapon. The state was obviously _looking_ for a way to lock these young men up for a very long time.

Ok, obviously you don't know anything about criminal law. It's pretty standard to treat bodily appendages as deadly weapons depending on the context.

Stomping on an unconscious kid's head while he's on the ground (I assume asphalt/concrete) would easily qualify. You might say it's dumb to interpret criminal statutes that way, but it's been a completely standard practice for decades, so this isn't a case of the state crucifying some young black kids.

Svigor said...

What's an issue is the SEVERITY OF THE PUNISHMENT handed to them. Attempted murder? That's worth marching over, and anyone who says otherwise must have an agenda.

And please save me the rational that the boys must've been intending to kill him since they kicked him in the head.


Yeah, we all know you're agenda-free, "Ibrahim."

The blacks were group-stomping an unconscious person. Sounds like attempted murder to me.

I don't know about anyone else, but in my mind, when I am gang-attacked, I assume murder is their intent. The Queensbury rules go right out the window, and I defend myself as if my attackers were about murder.

I'd like to hear others' opinions on this. I think it makes perfect sense for the assumption of intent vis-a-vis gang-attacks to be murder, both from a personal defense standpoint, and a judicial standpoint.

You can't know that

Last I heard, telepathy was still on the drawing board, but the judicial system still considers mens rea important.

Ergo, "hate crimes."

and it isn't likely something they'd do in public in front of an untold number of eyes if that was truly their intention.

Ah, logic at its finest. Vicious assault in front of a crowd makes sense, but murder in front of a crowd does not?

Anonymous said...

Lessons learned:
Should one ever find themselves in a situation where they are shot, stomped, etc. by a black mob, it will be "okay" because somebody, a few months back, gave them a dirty look, drove by with a confederate flag on their truck, or some such.
We can also count on David Bowie or some other glitzy celebrity to donate money to defray the costs, though. Woops! That money won't go to your medical bills, loss of wages, etc. That's for the perps!

tomv said...

Regarding what constitutes a "dangerous weapon" according to Lousiana courts from Lexis:

28. State proved defendant used a dangerous weapon to commit an aggravated battery on the victim as defendant's use of defendant's shoes defendant was wearing to kick the victim repeatedly with the intent to commit serious bodily injury qualified the shoes as a dangerous weapon because the manner in which the shoes were used, to inflict serious bodily injury, qualified the shoes as dangerous weapons. State v. Taylor, 485 So. 2d 117, 1986 La. App. LEXIS 6257 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1986).

The shoes alone, however, are insufficient. Serious bodily injury must be intended.

29. Evidence that defendant kicked the victim with a steel-toed boot was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for aggravated battery because such a boot was a dangerous weapon. State in Interest of Ruschel, 411 So. 2d 1216, 1982 La. App. LEXIS 7042 (La.App. 4 Cir. 1982).

Other objects the courts have found to constitute dangerous weapons include a sign post, a toy gun, a stick that left a "four-inch bruise."

Anonymous said...

What's an issue is the SEVERITY OF THE PUNISHMENT handed to them. Attempted murder?

We all learned in the L.A. Rodney King riots that a black man videotaped crushing a white man's skull with a cinderblock will not be punished as a would-be murderer.

Wiki: "Williams was convicted of mayhem and misdemeanor assault and was sentenced to 10 years."

Lesson learned: The act of pulling an anonymous white guy out of his truck and obviously trying to kill him in the street (as evidenced on videotape) though ultimately failing to do so, gets spit out of the machinery of the American legal system as "mayhem" and "misdemeanor assault".

Anonymous said...

"Unfortunately, we don't march in the streets for our rights. We just move away from the racist head kickers."

My sentiments exactly. I do everything I can to avoid "interacting" with blacks. They're nothing but trouble. I gave up on them once and for all after the O.J. verdict.

Anonymous said...

Poster Boy Michyal Bell had FOUR juvenile convictions for violent crimes, AFAIK all assault. His record was only recently unsealed. It's my understanding most of the other five also have juvenile records for violent crimes.

Given the interest in this case, it might turn out like OJ -- the Black criminal skates free out of pressure from threatened riots, and whites conclude that Civil Rights means not equal/fair treatment under the law but pure ethnic/racial powerplays.

It's illustrative that in CA Prop 209 passed solidly a few years after OJ skated from an all-Black jury.

Whites will not support Affirmative Action which hurts them to help Blacks if they see undeniable evidence that Blacks are just as racist as anyone else. [This of course was exactly the political danger that Dr. King foresaw but too many revenge-minded Blacks chose the path of racial/ethnic/cultural separatism and power-plays]

Interesting: the argument that "offensive" images are worse than violence only works one way. Confederate flags, nooses, dogs/pork/booze/women around Muslims, crosses in universities, etc. The idea that burquas, mosques, footbaths etc. might be offensive is dismissed as "Islamaphobia."

Message: PC means a complex Caste system of rights based on status and political power.

King Rollo said...

The German philosopher Hegel, who was then a professor at the University of Jena, is said to have completed his chef d'oeuvre, the Phenomenology of Spirit, while the battle raged. Hegel considered this battle to be "the end of the history", in terms of evolution of human societies towards what we would call the "liberal democracy".

Battle of Jena

Ibrahim Nur said...

said svigor: "Yeah, we all know you're agenda-free, "Ibrahim."

That settles it then. My name must surely indicate unwarranted bias on my part whereas, of course, you're just an utterly impartial commentator.

said svigor: "The blacks were group-stomping an unconscious person. Sounds like attempted murder to me."

Ah yes. The blacks, stomping on a 'person.' Their race surely does not color your conclusion. Oh no.

"Ah, logic at its finest. Vicious assault in front of a crowd makes sense, but murder in front of a crowd does not?"

Well last time I checked--and I could be wrong here--murder is not usually the intention of a group of kids ganging up on another kid. Call it assault or battery or whathaveyou--attempted murder is most unjustified, and the only the reason you would support that conclusion in this case is if you are an embittered, utter racist. Surprise surprise finding you here.

Hilbert said...

Here's an AP article that, to its credit, gives more context to the affair, but won't, of course, address the economic disparities in terms of anything so crude as IQ.

Svigor said...

said svigor: "Yeah, we all know you're agenda-free, "Ibrahim."

That settles it then. My name must surely indicate unwarranted bias on my part whereas, of course, you're just an utterly impartial commentator.


Nice try, but I didn't hang my hat on that observation, only made it in passing.

Ah yes. The blacks, stomping on a 'person.' Their race surely does not color your conclusion. Oh no.

That settles it then. My politics must surely indicate unwarranted bias on my part whereas, of course, you're just an utterly impartial commentator.

"Ah, logic at its finest. Vicious assault in front of a crowd makes sense, but murder in front of a crowd does not?"

Well last time I checked--and I could be wrong here--murder is not usually the intention of a group of kids ganging up on another kid.


What's your point? (Looks like you're moving the goalposts)

I stand by my position, that attempted murder is a reasonable charge for persons group-stomping an unconscious person's head.

But really, this is all semantics, since my ultimate point is that these sociopaths should spend the next ten years or so in prison for their actions (which are not in question, apparently), not whether this or that behavior constitutes this or that legal definition.

the only the reason you would support that conclusion in this case is if you are an embittered, utter racist.

Can you support this assertion?

Roach said...

Ibrahim, maybe you should Americanize your name because it is offensive to us for foreigners to come here and colonize us and try to change our culture. Can you do that? I feel threatened by your name. And my feelings are perfecdtly valid, are they not.

Try Abe, like Lincoln.

Anonymous said...

Ibrahim Nur:

- How many criminal proceedings have you studied (statistically) to claim that the "preliminary charge" here was disproportionate? The things you need to investigate are

. white x white
. white x black
. black x black
. black x white

cases. Yes, I specified white vs. black twice because there's white on black and black on white crime.

- What is your measure of "proper" punishment for crime? What studies do you cite as proof that the punishment "index" that *you* assume to be fit for prevention of crime and correction of criminals is worthy of supporting?

In an environment of constant daily antagonism where the slightest inter-ethnic/secterian incident could flame up (as it happened in some cities where I live back in the late '70s, for instance), the authorities will tend to deliver the harshest punishment just to keep people in line -- at least for a while.

But look at what you do. Behave as exactly expected: you, obviously an Arab immigrant, readily identify with blacks, and whine about "harshness" of... not even punishment but only a "charge," for heaven's sake.

Look, if I were a minority member in another society, and if I were so strung up about that society that even in cases like these I couldn't help siding with a bunch of kids who won't shirk their *irresponsibility*, I'd immediately pack and leave. You surely aren't safe there, and no, not because whites have an uncontrollable tendency to deliver injustice but because you're so paranoid about your status that you don't have the necessary impulse discipline. Sooner or later you'll run into incidents where you'll find yourself feeling *harshly* charged by the natives -- when in fact you had brought it upon yourself by reacting harshly to incidents due to their quite natural ignorance of the "nuances" or your ethnically/racially moulded behavior.

You see, if I were in Saudi Arabia, for instance, where you'd get 40 lashes for drinking alcohol or even eating publicly during the Ramadan (it could be much harsher such as 100, I don't know the exact figure; 40 sounded more like one of those fairy tale numbers that such superstitious societies seem fond of using; it may well be 99 as I'm sure God has a 99th name), I'd expect that if they treated me "harshly" (by whipping me 99th-name-of-God times) when I didn't observe their rules, it would be perfectly NORMAL. See how tolerant I am of "diversity?" And if your mind is permenantly damaged by left-wing propaganda to not be able to see the naturalness of this calculus, then you're definitely on a collision course with NORMALCY, and sooner or later you'll suffer.

Personally, if I were in America and if an incident like this had popped up, as a newcomer I'd just STFU since I'd consider it none of my business how native whites and native blacks settled their scores -- the umpteenth time -- centuries after native whites have made that great, unforgivable mistake against Africans. Which was bringing them to America, consequences be damned. (No, not taking them as slaves, that's what everybody did, and still do, in many parts of Africa and the Arabian peninsula.)

--

Svigor:

A couple of *technical* points:

- Quoting Ibrahim's name (when everyone here knows that he's not a Norwegian) and implying that that is enough to make him biased, or calling blacks 'black' and the white fellow 'person' really doesn't help, pal. I have no problem with you being a racist (myself being a racialist), just that it does nobody any good to torture sensible attitude. It just plays into the hands of those who'd like to caricature race-realists.

I have lived too many incidents on the net (especially after 9/11, you know, after which that bloody thing called "everything" was supposed to have changed but for some odd reason refused to do so) where just mentioning my national background was enough for others to gang up on me and entirely misread or distort everything I'd said. Believe me, it really rubs you the wrong way.

If Ibrahim has rushed to claim that you were being partial because of being pro-white (which he did with a typical knee-jerk reaction of the same kind), just say "yes, naturally, since I am white; and I don't see why I'm supposed to ignore that when almost every other ethnicity is doing the exact opposite" or something along these lines.

- I, too, fail to see the logical fallacy. People kick other people in front of a crowd all the time, and they do it purposefully so in those settings -- to show that they hold their ground. How many times have you been involved in a bar brawl and before the fight started you thought "shit, we're gonna get 15 years minimum for this?" Just doesn't happen. On the other hand, if you really act with the intent for murder -- that is, in a premeditated fashion -- you *do* avoid a spectator crowd, don't you?

The trick here is -- and I'd expect someone like you to spot *that* -- only certain groups start a fight before a crowd AND fail to terminate it even after the victim falls unconscious. No, not the Norwegians, nor the French, nor the Japanese. Another commentor above related explicitly how, when he defended himself in a carjacking incident, he immediately called an ambulance after the other party fell unconscious. Which is the racial giveaway: the black fellows most probably failed to terminate their action because of typically black-related reasons:

. lack of impulse control;
. not caring a twit about the consequences of what they were doing since they all were betting (knowing?) that the rigged legal "system" was going to side with them.

(This second one may be a generous estimate. It may just be that they are, as usual -- as the recent O.J. incident showed one more freakin' tiresome time again --, simply incapable of calculating "consequences." They live like Sartre's existentialists: only the HERE-AND-NOW exists, all else is illusory. Which may be why they are amazed that they are jailed at all. You see, that part is happening in the future, which, as we all know, is practically a "bourgeois social construct.")


JD

Anonymous said...

I was watching Stuart Taylor on c-span talk about his new book "until proven innocent" about the duke hoax. The parallels are similar.

I think what it will take to burst the dam is for vdare or isteve to do a television show. seriously. something that is unfiltered by political correctness would be so popular that it would be revolutionary.

Ibrahim Nur said...

JD:

Regarding how I would define a 'proper' punishment, I'm going to leave that to the legal scholars and philosophers. I do know though that locking up children for 30 years because they beat up another kid (who was up and running mere hours later) is fundementally out of balance.

said JD: "In an environment of constant daily antagonism where the slightest inter-ethnic/secterian incident could flame up (as it happened in some cities where I live back in the late '70s, for instance), the authorities will tend to deliver the harshest punishment just to keep people in line -- at least for a while."

How noble. If only we could substantiate that this was the -actual- intention of the man who was so eager to lock up the young men for 30 years. Are you sir somehow privy to this gentlemen's intentions in a way the rest us (human collective us, not racial us) aren't?

said JD: "But look at what you do. Behave as exactly expected: you, obviously an Arab immigrant, readily identify with blacks, and whine about "harshness" of... not even punishment but only a "charge," for heaven's sake."

My learned friend, do you really think that only Arabs have Arabic names? You are *reading* your own bizzare anxieties into my posts, making your chiding of svigor all the more ironical.

said JD: "Personally, if I were in America and if an incident like this had popped up, as a newcomer I'd just STFU since I'd consider it none of my business how native whites and native blacks settled their scores -- the umpteenth time -- centuries after native whites have made that great, unforgivable mistake against Africans. Which was bringing them to America, consequences be damned. (No, not taking them as slaves, that's what everybody did, and still do, in many parts of Africa and the Arabian peninsula.)"

Well, I'm not going to STFU. I'm going to speak my mind, so long as I still have the right. Thanks for the tip though! And hey, thanks for the letting me know that blacks should never have been brought over to America, not because it was a brutal crime against them (cause everyone did it, right?) but because of your own misfortune now in having to hear them bicker about injustice and stuff. Gotcha.

Ciao!

Ibrahim Nur said...

said Roach: "Ibrahim, maybe you should Americanize your name because it is offensive to us for foreigners to come here and colonize us and try to change our culture. Can you do that? I feel threatened by your name. And my feelings are perfecdtly valid, are they not."

Sure, your feelings are "valid," but that says nothing for whether or not they should be respected. Hmmkay?

Also, I do generally go by "Abe" only because native American English speakers are incapable of pronouncing "Ibrahim" correctly. I gave in long time ago in sheer horror of how people were butchering my name. But don't feel less threatened. I date white women and plan to monopolize several of them in their fertile years, thereby lowering the growth of the White Race. Justified because I have to go by Abe.

Cheers.

Anonymous said...

Don't bother Ibrahim. There is obviously something fundamentally wrong with the souls of many of sailer's readers. I honestly don't know why Sailer, an obviously intelligent man, panders to them. In any case, I find it hilarious how one can make assumptions, not only about your race, but about the status of your residence in this country, and your religion, then claim that those are the reasons why you "identify" with blacks, all based only on your name, is a very sick individual. I feel sorry for him. If I were a religious man, I would pray for him. But I do not see any point in arguing with him.

Jules said...

Prepare for the Norfolk 7

Anonymous said...

"I date white women and plan to monopolize several of them in their fertile years, thereby lowering the growth of the White Race. Justified because I have to go by Abe."

Ah, Ibrahim. I know there are certain things you won't do for a white woman or any woman for that matter. Trust me you will not "monopolize" any non-Muslim woman. No matter what you may be led to believe.

Anonymous said...

I don't understand the American Black fascination with Arabic names. Arabs detest Africans as perhaps no other. They implemented the longest, largest and most brutal African slave trade and were only stopped by the British. Even today, Arabs routinely massacre and enslave Africans.

At least make up a name that sounds remotely African. It can be a complete historic patchwork fiction like Kwanzaa and most people won’t know.

An American Black with an Arab name either has some serious self-hate issue or is just satirizing him/herself.

Anonymous said...

How do you know he is Muslim??? Not every one with an Arabic name is a Muslim, you bigot.

Anonymous said...

"Arabs detest Africans as perhaps no other."
Pretty broad generalizations, don't you think?
"Even today, Arabs routinely massacre and enslave Africans."
No, they don't. Some Africans who happen to primarily speak Arabic massacre and enslave their fellow Africans, some of whom speak Arabic predominantly and some of whom do not. Also, some non-Arab Africans massacre their fellow Africans who happen to predominantly speak Arabic. "Arab" and "African" are not mutually exclusive categories, despite the attempts of various devils to divide and conquer. Millions of Arabs live on the African continent. The "Arab" and "African" militias in the Darfur conflict, despite the claims of Western interventionists, are both Arab and African. All parties are Muslims. The reason why many (but perhaps not all) Afro-Americans choose to call themselves by Arabic names is because they have converted to Islam, a religion which, in its true form as revealed in the Quran does not recognize race. As the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said: "No Arab is superior over an non-Arab, no non-Arab is superior over an Arab. No white is superior over a black, no black is superior over a white. All these superiority’s are man-made. Only superiority is that of piety, human conduct and moral behaviour."
Finally, it is true that some Arabs participated in one of the greatest crimes in the history of the human race: the African Holocaust. As did some Jews, Europeans, and Africans. Many were responsible for this atrocity, and many still are responsible for its lingering effects. What is your point?

Anonymous said...

“Arabs detest Africans as perhaps no other” – a broad generalization but roughly correct judging from both historical and contemporary accounts. Do you have another group in mind other than the Arabs? I thought of Asians, but the geography alone denied them the ability to demonstrate the animosity Arabs have. In fact, the Chinese are currently making a fair run at economically colonizing Africa aided by their pragmatic single-mindedness which precludes overt racism.

In the context of race, which is one of the issues here, Arabs (a Caucasian subtype) and Africans (Negroid) are recognized as distinct categories. You are intentionally blurring the issue via geography (a White living in Africa is not Black/Negroid) and language (a Black speaking Mandarin is not Asian/Chinese). In addition, most ethnic Arabs would be deeply offended if you called him or his ancestors Negroid. These are basic facts and realities of the world we live in.

Regarding the Darfur conflict, it is the Janjaweed (mainly an Arab Bedouin Baggara tribes) with Sudanese government support who are killing the Black Africans rebels. As both sides are mainly Muslim, this only clarifies a racial component (Arabs on the ground killing Africans) of the conflict which is one of several components.

I suspect it is the proximity between the Arabs and the Africans, combined with the historical disparity in levels of civilization led to the Arabs conquering, colonizing and enslaving Africans (17M est). Unlike the Europeans (1M est) they enslaved, the Arabs did not see a worthy opponent or civilization among the Africans which led to their more brutal treatment. Compare the mutual respect between Saladin and Richard the lion-hearted during the Crusades and the ancient Greek/Roman knowledge that the Arab world largely preserved during the European Dark Ages to an African continent where even the fundamentals of civilization where largely unknown: written languages, the wheel, metal works, libraries/universities, large urban centers, law and trade beyond the tribal level, etc.

Finally, despite routine castration of males and a bias for female slaves, it’s likely some African admixture exists in present Arabs. At the same time, the blonde, blue eye Western woman is still a distinct stereotype of beauty in the Arab world. This may explain the perhaps excessive denials and dislike for thing African among Arabs – creating a psychological separation from what one is towards what one aspires towards.

My original question was why American Blacks adopt Arabic names when Arabs have such a long, tawdry history with Africans. It doesn’t appear to be part of the Muslim tradition per se either: Muslims in European Balkins and Indonesia did not all adopt Arabic names. It seems an ill-conceived culture grab by an uninformed group of Westerners, primarily Black, who want to define themselves by what they are not rather than what they are (contrast themselves with prevailing social norms).

Svigor said...

Let's discuss the "lingering effects" of the "African holocaust."

Do they include:

Wealth for the descendants of survivors roughly 50 times that of the descendants of those "fortunate" enough to remain in Africa?

Vastly improved health care, judicial system, educational system, infrastructure, consumer goods, etc., etc., ad infinitum?

I could use some "lingering effects" like that myself, really.

Let's be honest here. The "lingering effects you refer to are the best thing to happen to any large population of sub-Saharan Africans, anywhere, ever.

Anonymous said...

FYI, Mohammed did not say in his last sermon what you claim - some modern PC mumbo jumbo about everyone being equal regardless of race or religion. What he said was:
“O People, listen to me in earnest, whorship(sic) ALLAH, say your five daily prayers (Salah), fast during the month of Ramadhan, and give your wealth in Zakat. Perform Hajj if you can afford to. You know that every Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. YOU ARE ALL EQUAL. NOBODY HAS SUPERIORITY OVER OTHER EXCEPT BY PIETY AND GOOD ACTION.” (He is speaking explicated to his faithful Muslim followers – not infidels)
You do not have to be a Quran scholar or Google “Mohammed last sermon” to know your quote makes no sense. At the time of Mohammed’s death, Islam was in the midst of long expansion via military violence against peoples and countries of other faiths. It also has begun history’s largest and most brutal slave trade, sanctioned by the Quran. Mohammed himself had numerous slaves:
“Quran allows slavery and sex with slave girls (Quran 3.4, 3.24, 23.6,33.50,70.30). Hadiths and prophet's biography confirm that prophet had many slave men and women as he got 20 % share of the booty from raids including captured men and women ( his wives Safia, Juavaria, and Rehana were captured after killing their husbands in raids) His son Ibrahim was born to his slave girl Maria.”

Anonymous said...

"No white is superior over a black, no black is superior over a white." --Muhammed

Why should the pronouncements of spiritual figures take precedence over those of scientists and historians? Superior/inferior in this context is generally used in reference to the ability to build and sustain a competitive civilisation that won't be supplanted by others. Again, why should the words of so called spiritual figures like (e.g. Muhhammed, Martin Luther King, or Bishop Tutu) be given any weight at all when making such judgements? It sounds suspiciously like an effort to give a political program an aura of divine imprimatur, but all of the Abrahamic faiths are guilty of that.

Muhammed makes it sound as though we should only be concerned with moral qualities of individuals but civilistion couldn't function if that were are only concern. That there are familes, extended familes (races) etc is an emergent property of nature. Nations and tribes that work with reality in will obviously end up with a great compatitive advantage over those who work against the grain in the name of Marxist levelling. Didn't Muhammed give favour to his own sons, appointing them as his heirs?[1] When he did so was he practicing what he preached? Had he appointed heirs on the basis of moral qualities alone would Islam have survived?

[1] I may be misremembering. Correct me if I am wrong.

Anonymous said...

"In the context of race, which is one of the issues here, Arabs (a Caucasian subtype) and Africans (Negroid) are recognized as distinct categories. You are intentionally blurring the issue via geography (a White living in Africa is not Black/Negroid) and language (a Black speaking Mandarin is not Asian/Chinese). In addition, most ethnic Arabs would be deeply offended if you called him or his ancestors Negroid. These are basic facts and realities of the world we live in."

"Arab" is not a race. Upon its foundation in 1946, the Arab League defined "Arab" as anyone "whose language is Arabic, who lives in an Arabic speaking country, who is in sympathy with the aspirations of the Arabic speaking peoples." It has nothing to do with race or religion. Compare, for example, Omar al-Bashir of the Sudan (http://www.voanews.com/english/images/afp_Sudan_Omar_Al-Bashir_01Mar07_0.jpg) with Bashar al-Assad of Syria (http://msnbcmedia4.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/060815/060815_assad_vmed_6a.widec.jpg). Both are Arabs, yet, if one chose, one could classify Bashir as "Negroid" and Assad as "Caucasoid," although I don't think it would help much to do so. Most of the "Janjaweed" militiamen would be classified as "Black" in the United States. Bashir certainly would. On average, the "Arabs" and "Africans" in Darfur have about the same color skin. Both groups live in Africa and have historical ties to that continent, and both groups speak Arabic (although the "Africans" speak other languages as well). And both groups, of course, are Muslim. The conflict has nothing to do with race, religion, or nationality. It is about economics. The "Arabs" are nomadic herders, whereas the "Africans" are farmers. This is basically the same conflict that went on between to economic classes of white people in the 19th century Western U.S. That conflict had nothing to do with race. It was about ranchers vs. herders. Same thing with Darfur.

It doesn’t appear to be part of the Muslim tradition per se either: Muslims in European Balkins and Indonesia did not all adopt Arabic names.

True, one does not have to adopt an Arabic name upon conversion to Islam. But the vast majority of converts to Islam all across the world choose to give themselves an new name in the language in which God revealed himself. Arabs are not superior or inferior to anyone according to Islam, but the Arabic language has a very important significance to all Muslims, regardless of their language, race, or ethnicity.

Anonymous said...

Svigor said:
"Let's discuss the "lingering effects" of the "African holocaust."

Do they include:

Wealth for the descendants of survivors roughly 50 times that of the descendants of those "fortunate" enough to remain in Africa?

Vastly improved health care, judicial system, educational system, infrastructure, consumer goods, etc., etc., ad infinitum?

I could use some "lingering effects" like that myself, really.

Let's be honest here. The "lingering effects you refer to are the best thing to happen to any large population of sub-Saharan Africans, anywhere, ever."

Have you ever taken a college-level course in elementary logic? Because your argument suggests that you haven't. Yes, Afro-Americans have it better off then their brothers and sisters in Africa, but so what? Injustice is injustice, no matter where it happens. So, yes, Blacks in the Late 19th to early 20th century under Jim Crow had it better than their counterparts in the Belgian Congo, but who cares? That doesn't mean that American Blacks should have just sucked it up and thanked God that they weren't getting there hands cut off by Leopold II. Similarly, if conservatives complain to me that taxes are too high in the U.S., I could just tell them to be grateful they aren't living in Sweden. But I'd be wrong. The justice or prudence of the current income tax level in the U.S. has nothing to do with how high taxes are in other countries. Fact is, 61% of Afro-American families have zero or negative net financial worth, whereas only 25% of white American families are in a similar situation. This has a WHOLE lot to do with slavery and Jim Crow and the fact that Afro-Americans in the past were denied the oppurtunity to accumulate wealth and pass it down to their descendants. This situation needs to be redressed regardless of how well off American Blacks are relative to their African brothers and sisters.

Anonymous said...

"Compare the mutual respect between Saladin and Richard the lion-hearted during the Crusades and the ancient Greek/Roman knowledge that the Arab world largely preserved during the European Dark Ages to an African continent where even the fundamentals of civilization where largely unknown: written languages, the wheel, metal works, libraries/universities, large urban centers, law and trade beyond the tribal level, etc."
Uh, Africans definitely had the wheel and metal works before their contact with Arabs. As for "large urban centers," it depends on what you mean by "large." They definitely had cities. More importantly, your use of such culturally loaded terms as "civilization" and "tribal" is unhelpful. The societies we call "civilizations" were highly stratified along class lines. They had a small ruling class which was able to mobilize large a workforce from the underclass to construct grandiose public works for its own self-aggrandizement. If this is what you mean by "civilization," then you should say so in so many words. The word "civilization" doesn't help anybody to understand anything any better. As for "tribal": Why are the Ibo people called a "tribe," whereas Ruthenians are called a "nationality," even the Ruthenians are a pretty small people compared to the Ibo. Clearly, the word "tribes" was coined to refer to non-white people, and it is still used that way today. It is not a scientific term. You would do better with a term like "clans."

Anonymous said...

“Fact is, 61% of Afro-American families have zero or negative net financial worth, whereas only 25% of white American families are in a similar situation. This has a WHOLE lot to do with slavery and Jim Crow and the fact that Afro-Americans in the past were denied the opportunity to accumulate wealth and pass it down to their descendants.”

That fact has almost nothing to do with slavery/Jim Crow and almost everything to do with the lower IQ and self-destructive culture of native-born American blacks which denigrates cultural values leading towards wealth accumulation: education, thrift, modesty, hard work, non-violent cooperation, etc. The academic and economic success of immigrants from Black countries only highlight how much opportunity there is for any remotely qualified native-born American Black (unfortunately created on the backs of institutional anti-White/Asian racism).

Wave after wave of immigrants from all over the world washed up on these shores have made successes of themselves despite all types of racism, materially starting far below native-born Blacks and not even knowing English. Many of these immigrants have experienced far more physical, mental and economic suffering than any native-born American Black ever experienced in America: murder, rape, torture of entire families and tribes in Africa, years of physical/mental torture in Nazi concentration or Communist reeducation/labor camps, etc.

Bitching and using veiled threats to extort government, university and corporate handouts does not level the playing field. It merely creates a lazy, ungrateful and resentful class of Blacks holding unearned jobs, degrees and titles that everyone knows are artificial. The brightest and most motivated immigrants coming from countries like India, China, Russia and yes, Africa are doing quite well – the biggest problem of racism exists in your mind and the minds of other disgruntled and self-destructive American-blacks.

Anonymous said...

Anon 9:42

Reading comprehension my friend: no one claimed Arabs were a race, but rather a Caucasian subtype (frequently with some Negroid ad-mixture as seen especially in places like East Africa).

In 1616 the Pope declared Galileo’s solar-centered planetary system to be heretical and forced him Galileo to renounce it. That did not change the fact that the earth revolved around the Sun. Similarly, the 1946 Arab League political definition of “Arab” does not change the genetic reality that the term “Arabs” genetically denotes a largely Caucasoid subtype. Like the term Jew, Arab can mean a genetic ethnicity distinct from a political identity. These definitions do not inheritedly conflict. BTW, many Arab Muslim countries had active slave markets in 1946 and some African Muslim countries still do (largely Arab colonial descendents oppressing native Black Africans).

I suspect the Darfur Conflict is somewhat similar to the 19th century Western US. This is an economic land grab and ethnic cleansing by a more advanced and powerful people (Whites/Arabs) from more primitive and weaker people (Native Americans/Black Africans). But what motivates and justifies this clearly delineated violent attack by Muslim Arabs (albeit dark w/African ad-mixtures) on Christian Africans is that the victims are seen as different, weak and inferior (racial, cultural and religiously). Unlike the US Indian Wars, the Janjaweed appear not to have any high-minded liberals setting up Indian Schools to acculturate children or bureaucratic functionaries setting up reservations or going through the motions of signing treaties.

Muslims are superior to infidels and Islam makes that clear in many violent, cruel and unjust ways. Although Arab is not synonyms with Muslims, they closely correlate.

Anonymous said...

"Reading comprehension my friend: no one claimed Arabs were a race, but rather a Caucasian subtype (frequently with some Negroid ad-mixture as seen especially in places like East Africa)."

Did you take a look at the picture of Bashir? Would any reasonable person classify him as "Caucasoid?" Or how about this "janjaweed" fighter:
http://dusteye.files.wordpress.com/2007/02/janjawid.jpg

I would say he's blacker than most African-Americans. (which just goes to show you the socially-constructed nature of race) Arabs do note comprise a race, or a "Caucasian subtype." Genetic studies show that the Arab Palestinians are roughly the same people as have lived their for thousands of years before the Arab conquest. They are not in any way related to people from the Arabian Peninsula. The reason they are called Arabs because they now speak Arabic.

"I suspect the Darfur Conflict is somewhat similar to the 19th century Western US. This is an economic land grab and ethnic cleansing by a more advanced and powerful people (Whites/Arabs) from more primitive and weaker people (Native Americans/Black Africans)."
No, I wasn't referring to the conflict between whites and indigenous people. I was referring to the conflict between (white) sheep herders and (white) cattle ranchers. Simarly, the Darfur conflict is between (black) farmers and (black) herders. Period. Your obsession with "race" causes you to see racial conflicts where they don't exist. This is an economic conflict, not a "racial," nor even an ethnic one.
"But what motivates and justifies this clearly delineated violent attack by Muslim Arabs (albeit dark w/African ad-mixtures) on Christian Africans is that the victims are seen as different, weak and inferior (racial, cultural and religiously)."
Haven't we gone over this before? The "African" Darfurians are just as Muslim as the "Arab" ones. That's the last time I'm going to make that clear for you.

"Although Arab is not synonyms with Muslims, they closely correlate."
The vast majority of the worlds Muslims are non-Arabs (meaning they do not speak Arabic as a primary language, not that thry don't fall into any imaginary "Caucasoid subtype").

Anonymous said...

The use of ambiguous terms “civilization” and “tribal” may be counterproductive, but “stratification along class lines” is not a good marker for what is civilization. This is a PC-driven meaningless distinction because all human and even animal groups have hierarchies and stratification, often quite complex.

Civilization should be that which distinguishes humans from animals. Using our intellect, curiosity and drive to observer, understand and master our world via knowledge, art and science instead of passively reacting to the world. Without developing or even copying written languages, universities and scientific methods, the peoples in typical Black Africa largely lacked the ability to create anything but the most rudimentary civilizations for most of their human history.

Anonymous said...

Clearly, the word "tribes" was coined to refer to non-white people, and it is still used that way today.

Not true. Whites do not refer to the highly civilized Japanese or Chinese as "tribes". They were recognized as accomplished civilizations and even potentionally dangerously competitive with the West.

Anonymous said...

"That fact has almost nothing to do with slavery/Jim Crow and almost everything to do with the lower IQ and self-destructive culture of native-born American blacks which denigrates cultural values leading towards wealth accumulation: education, thrift, modesty, hard work, non-violent cooperation, etc. The academic and economic success of immigrants from Black countries only highlight how much opportunity there is for any remotely qualified native-born American Black (unfortunately created on the backs of institutional anti-White/Asian racism)."

I was talking about net financial worth. That reflects wealth accumulated by previous generations passed down to the present. Those past generations of black folk born before the Civil Rights era presumably had nothing like the so-called "self-destructive" culture that you claim exists among today's Afro-Americans. White folks today have the privilege of having received from their parents and grandparents and great-grandparents the wealth that they worked so hard to build up and pass down to future generations (it wasn't always worked for however; after WWII, white folks, and almost only white folks, got virtually interest free FHA housing loans, which did a lot toward creating the modern-day white middle class. Needless to say, if those loans had been given to blacks, it would have been called "welfare," but since whites got them, they called it "sound macroeconomic policy"). Black folks in the past, even though most of them worked extremely hard, didn't have the oppurtunity to build up their assets so their kids and grandkids and great-grandkids could have a better life. You mention the success of recent immigrants from Black countries. But you also talk about the low-IQ of native Blacks. Do fellow West Africans from the West Indies have higher IQs than native Afro-Americans? If not, then this shows that IQ should not be that much of an impediment to native Black success. If they do have higher IQs, then since West Indians and African-Americans are roughly the same genetically speaking, this affirms the importance of environmental factors in IQ scores.
While IQ does seem to correlate with poverty, and Afro-Americans do have lower IQs and higher poverty, you are confusing the causal relationship. The truth is, rather than low IQs causing poverty, poverty causes low IQs. Black performance on various standardized tests have been increasing for the past 20 years or so, yet black crime, poverty and unemployment have jumped around over this period. From 1960-1973, black poverty dropped about 50%. After 1973, black poverty leveled off. That had nothing to do with IQ or genes, and everything to do with social and macroeconomic government policy. Poverty among the elderly has been dropping since social security was introduced in the 1930's. Does that mean that old people have been getting smarter all this time? Obviously not. In 1977, the wealthiest 1% of the country owned about 28% of the country's assets. In 1990, the wealthiest 1% owned 48% of the assets. Did the super-rich become astronomically smarter over those decades? Or, perhaps, did it have more to do with the massive upward redistribution of wealth during the Reagan years (starting in its incipient form, like most of Reagan's policies, with Jimmy Carter), through tax cuts, cuts in social services, and vastly increased military spending? If you think our current economic situation is the way it is because the rich have been getting smarter all this time, then maybe you need to get your IQ checked out.

Anonymous said...

"The use of ambiguous terms “civilization” and “tribal” may be counterproductive, but “stratification along class lines” is not a good marker for what is civilization. This is a PC-driven meaningless distinction because all human and even animal groups have hierarchies and stratification, often quite complex."

That's simply not true. Hunter-gatherer societies simply do not have the resources to afford to stratify their societies along class lines. Once food production replaced food-collection as a means of securing life, only then did people start to dominate one another in a systematic way. Food-producing societies are stationary, unlike nomadic, hunter-gatherer "tribes," so they can stick around in the same place long enough for class structures to develop. Also, the ruling class can draw on a stable economic resource for its power. What we call "civilizations" are simply class societies where the economic base of power for the ruling class has developed enough to the point where that same ruling class can afford to sponsor grandiose public works, as well as works of art, religion and science, that celebrate themselves. This isn't "PC" or "Marxist," it is simply basic knowledge. If you don't believe me, read a book on anthropology. I don't have time to argue with people who dismiss everything that doesn't fit with their own prejudices and ideology as "politically correct." It's not politically correct, its simply correct.

Anonymous said...

"FYI, Mohammed did not say in his last sermon what you claim - some modern PC mumbo jumbo about everyone being equal regardless of race or religion."
No, your right, he did not say everyone was equal regardless of religion. He was a Muslim, and he believed Islam is a superior religion, just as Christians, Jews, Hindus, etc., believe their religions are superior. He said every Muslim was equal regardless of race. Anyone who tries to obey God's will in every aspect of life is better than anyone who does not, regardless of their skin-color.

Anonymous said...

As for the Quran sanctioning slavery, one should understand that as a prudential allowance on the part of Muhammad, peace be upon him, based on the circumstances of his time, rather than a Divine sanction from Allah. When St. Paul told slaves to obey their masters, he was not giving a OK to slavery straight from the mouth of Jesus Christ, peace be upon him, but was giving a piece of prudential advice to his fellow Christians who were slaves. That does not mean that God approves of slavery. The Torah also has rules regarding treatment of slaves and so forth. And, in any case, slavery in the Prophet's day was not based on racism.

Anonymous said...

One more point about your comparison of native blacks and recent black immigrants. Consider what this article (http://www.umass.edu/afroam/hor.html)
says about the matter:
The "comparison of African Americans with Jamaicans is a false analogy, ignoring the different historical contexts of the two populations. The British government ended slavery in Jamaica and its other West Indian territories in 1836, paying West Indian slaveholders $20,000,000 pounds ($100,000,000 U.S. dollars) to free the slaves, and leaving the black Jamaicans, who comprised 90% of that island's population, relatively free. Though still facing racist obstacles, Jamaicans come to the U.S. as voluntary immigrants, with greater opportunity to weigh, choose, and develop their options." The same could be said for most, if not all, other West Indian populations.

Anonymous said...

The janjaweed may look African to your Western eye, but they self-identify as Arabs and generally do not look as African as the non-Arab Sudanese Blacks they are terrorizing. The janjaweed are ”a militia group recruited mostly from the Arab Baggara tribes” (”thought to be partly descendants of Arab tribes who settled the region primarily from the fourteenth to the eighteenth century”).

Both sides in the Darfur Conflict are Muslim, but the Janjaweed are a militia drawn from Darfurian and Arabic-speaking tribes that became notorious for racist rhetoric, massacre, rape and forced displacement…with an Arab supremacists ideology" (primary directed against Black Africans they see as inferior). This supports my original contention that there is no race (or racial subtype) of people that despises Negriod Africans as much as Arabs (using either the racial or cultural definition of Arabs outlined in the last post). (Black-)Arabs even today enslave Black Africans in the Sudan and Mauritania. The only groups I can think who have been more brutal to Negroid Africans are other Negroid Africans on the tribal level (e.g. ethnic genocide Rawanda and many other places on smaller scales).

The analogy you tried to draw between White 19th century American cattle vs sheep hearders with the Darfur conflict missed the virulent racial motivations and large-scale genocidal tactics. I purposefully provided the more accurate analogy of White 19th century settlers vs Native America tribes. Your obsession with race (principally the absurd denial of its existence or influence in conflict like Darfur) causes you to miss the obvious analogy here in favor of one that explains virtually nothing about the specifics of Darfur (e.g. almost all conflicts have historically been for land either directly or indirectly).

You are correct in that, unlike the previous conflict in Darfur, the current one is Muslim on Muslim violence (not Muslim on Christian as I misstated). However, this only again reinforces my original contention that Arabs hate Black Africans as no other. That is, much of the moral justification and animus is driven by the overtly racists beliefs publically stated by the self-professed Arab supremacists who are massacring the Black Sudanese.

And a clarification, the obvious correlation stated was in one direction. That is, most Arabs are Muslims (not that most Muslims are Arabs as you inferred).

Anonymous said...

"The janjaweed may look African to your Western eye, but they self-identify as Arabs and generally do not look as African as the non-Arab Sudanese Blacks they are terrorizing."
Take a look at these people from the Baggara tribe (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.sudan101.com/images/bagman1.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.sudan101.com/baggara.htm&h=296&w=222&sz=10&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=nNw4mLVXn2aNdM:&tbnh=116&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dbaggara%26svnum%3D10%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dsafari%26rls%3Den%26sa%3DN)
They look pretty "African" to me.
One of the confusing things about this conflict is that their was another recent conflict between the Arab Muslims of northern Sudan and the non-Arab Christians and animists of the south. The northerners ARE generally lighter skinned than the southerners. (Of course, that includes the "African" tribes of Darfur as well. They are not as black as the southerners are either, and they are generally the same color as their neighbors of all tribes).
Stop reading wikipedia articles and take some time to learn about the situation.

(BTW, the website I posted the link from is a Christian fundamentalist website. Christian fundamentalists, as well as liberals and neocons, are the primary advocates for intervention in Darfur. I guess its like they say: imperialism makes strange bedfellows.)

Anonymous said...

From the Christian fundamentalist website:
"After staking their claim on the land, they [the Baggara] intermarried with the Africans who originally inhabited these regions, thus giving them their dark skin."