The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
 TeasersSam Francis Blogview
/
Race Riots

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
🔊 Listen RSS

In Cincinnati, where race riots flamed for three days in April, the fruits of the war against racial profiling are now dropping off the trees. Last week both The Washington Times and The New York Times carried virtually the same story: Crime in Cincinnati is out of control—for the simple reason that the police are afraid to enforce the law.

“We’re seeing an epidemic rise in violent crime,” Keith Fangman, head of the Cincinnati Fraternal Order of Police, told the New York Times last week. (“Police in Cincinnati Pull Back in Wake of Riots”, June 19, 2001) Three months after the riots in April, Cincinnati has seen 59 shooting incidents with 77 victims. In the three months before the riots, there were a mere 9 shootings and 11 victims. “The aftermath of the riots has actually been more harmful to the city than the riots themselves,” says Mr. Fangman.

The reason for the eruption of violence is simple: The war between crooks and cops is over; the cops lost. Cincinnati police, Mr. Fangman also tells the press, are “shellshocked.” They know that if they do their jobs at all well, they’re liable to be ruined—to lose their jobs, maybe face criminal charges, and finally even face prison and an endless series of lawsuits from the criminal lobby and its allies.

“Arrests in Cincinnati have dropped 50 percent since mid-April,” the New York Times reports, and perhaps even more frightening, there has been a 55 percent drop in traffic stops, essential to effective police work. As the Times explains, “The union chief defended traffic stops as crucial to policing but blacks often call them harassment rooted in racial profiling.” Rather than risk charges of racial profiling, the cops simply don’t stop drivers, with the results that I and others predicted—crime rolls out of control.

The April riots started when a white police officer shot and killed a black fugitive. The fugitive’s funeral was attended by the mayor and the governor of Ohio, to display their sympathy with him instead of the officer who risked his life. The officer was indicted. Why the hell should the cops enforce the law?

In a recent newsletter to members of the police union, Mr. Fangman explained in bitter language what his colleagues face if they do their jobs: “If you want to make 20 traffic stops a shift and chase every dope dealer you see, you go right ahead. Just remember that if something goes wrong, or you make the slightest mistake in that split second, it could result in having your worst nightmare come true for you and your family, and City Hall will sell you out.” Every cop in the city knows what Mr. Fangman writes is true. No cop today believes his department or his city government will back him up when the forces of Afro-racism and the criminals’ lobby weigh in.

In fact, last week a group of what the Times calls “black leaders” held a rally to denounce Mr. Fangman and the police union and demand a national boycott of Cincinnati until there are “tangible improvements in economic opportunities and police relations in impoverished black neighborhoods.” The ACLU is already suing the city for racial profiling by the police; “we’re not anti-police,” the ACLU spokesman says. “We’re anti-bad policing.”

How about no policing at all, which is what pandering to black rioters and their self-appointed demagogues has achieved in Cincinnati? How about a national boycott until there are tangible improvements in the capacity of its black residents to obey the law and refrain from beating up white people because they’re white? How about a lawsuit against gangs like the ACLU that prevent the police from protecting the rights and safety of the public?

What is happening in Cincinnati is entirely predictable. How long can you expect to pay police officers to risk their jobs and their lives when doing so results in their ruin, their imprisonment or their death? Crime can be fought only by relying on techniques that involve stopping suspects who fit statistical profiles of criminals and shooting suspects who resist arrest and are threatening to shoot you. Even if such practices don’t stop crime, they at least keep the cops themselves from getting maimed or killed. If the cops can’t use them, why would anyone be a cop, and why would any cop take any risk to bring a suspect down?

What is happening in Cincinnati may in fact be a turning point, the moment when it finally penetrates the public consciousness, as it already has the consciousness of Cincinnati police, that civilized life cannot continue under the constraints that fashionable liberalism allied with racial paranoia demand and impose. When the rest of the nation understands what the cops in Cincinnati are trying to tell it, the real criminals who have destroyed law enforcement might be brought to justice.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Race Riots 
🔊 Listen RSS

After four straight days of anti-white mayhem in Cincinnati, the national media evidently decided that they could no longer keep their lid on one of the nation’s largest race riots since the 1960s. Therefore, in place of simple suppression, what the nation’s news watchers got was spin—that the oppressed blacks of Cincinnati took to the streets because of a racist white police force that had slaughtered 15 blacks since 1995, “a period when no whites have died at the hands of police,” The Washington Post smugly smirked in its first front-page story on the riots.

Presumably, the Post would think it more equitable if the Cincinnati cops just shot down 15 white men at random to make the score more even. After all, what the blacks slain by police had actually done or threatened to do seems to have no connection with whether their being killed by police was justifiable or not. What matters is race, and if the cops kill X number of blacks, then it’s only fair that they also kill X number of whites.

That seems to be the logic not only of the national media but also of the black mobs and their leaders. So far, few have noted that most of the blacks killed by police, by any reasonable moral standard, had it coming. The New York Times had the honesty to publish descriptions of the circumstances in which the 15 black suspects were slain.

In virtually all of them, the killings occurred as acts of self-defense by police officers or as accidents in the course of subduing resisting suspects. In eight of the 15, the suspects were themselves armed and had shot or threatened to shoot at police. In only two (including the most recent death that touched off the riots) were the suspects not engaged in some kind of violent struggle with or resistance to the police. In one, a black 12-year-old was “shot while illegally driving a relative’s car. The officer who tried to stop him was dragged and died.” The Times conveniently omitted that the officer in this case was black also. For some reason, no blacks rioted over his death.

Nor do most of the national news stories deal with the whites, mostly women and elderly people, dragged from their cars and beaten by black mobs in the course of the riots. That sort of stuff is not in the spin, you see, and the whole point of the spin is to justify the riots, to discredit the police, to induce guilt and paralyze action among whites, to incite blacks to yet further violence.

Nothing either the city or the federal government did in response to the riots challenged in any respect the dominant media spin. Cincinnati’s white Democratic mayor, who gets himself elected by pandering to black voters, was careful to tell the press that black complaints about the police might be “very legitimate,” while Attorney General John Ashcroft, still sedulously trying to prove he’s not a racist, lurched firmly into the laps of the rioters.

The attorney general immediately launched investigations into the Cincinnati police for their racial biases, while the FBI embarked on an inquiry into the death of the black lawbreaker that sparked the riots in the first place. The message from Mr. Ashcroft and the Bush administration was perfectly clear: If you riot, if you attack and assault white women and old people because of their race, if you burn and destroy enough, you will be rewarded. Your complaints will be received as “very legitimate”; the entire power of the federal government will be delivered to you, and those who will be punished will be the white victims of the black mobs and the white police officers whose lives black criminals threaten every day.

The message white Americans have been sent is equally clear: We—the federal government, the presidency, and the Department of Justice—are not on the side of justice, law, and order. We are on the side of lawbreakers, rioters, hate criminals who select their white victims on the basis of race, because we need their votes and we fear being called “racists.” What white Americans need to learn from the Cincinnati riots, as from the Seattle riots a few weeks before, is that they no longer have a government. They are now delivered into the state of nature. And it may soon get worse.

Many blacks—including most black political leaders—don’t consider the Bush administration to have been legitimately elected or to be a legitimate government; unemployment is on the rise; and the long hot summer, with possible energy blackouts rolling down through the nation’s over-crowded cities, yawns before us. What the media, the mobs and the Bush administration created last week in Cincinnati may be merely the beginning.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race Riots 
🔊 Listen RSS

The news unfit to print for the last couple of weeks has to do with black violence against whites trying to celebrate “Fat Tuesday” in cities all over the country. Known in French as “Mardi Gras” in New Orleans, the day from now on might be better known as Bloody rather than Fat.

In Philadelphia, police rounded up some 80 people for street violence. In Fresno, a mob stormed the city’s Tower District and threw bottles at the cops, and one person was sent to the hospital with stab wounds. But it was in Seattle that Bloody Tuesday got really nasty.

“There will be no more Fat Tuesdays,” Seattle Mayor Paul Schell pronounced after the city’s “youth” proved itself incapable of having a good time the day before Lent without murdering someone. The someone who got murdered was a white man, 20-year-old Kris Kime, who tried to rescue a white woman from being trampled by a black mob. Mr. Kime, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports, “was smashed over the head with a bottle, and kicked and stomped by a group of men.” The police stood aside and did nothing.

The reason the police did nothing? That’s exactly what they were ordered to do. Seattle police Sgt. Daniel Beste later sent a letter of apology to Mr. Kimes’ mother, saying “we also were aware of the rising tide of violence long before your son was killed and continually asked, ‘Why don’t we stop this?’ Unfortunately, my question was never answered.” Sgt. Beste also enclosed the 200 dollars he received for the “amount of overtime I was paid by the taxpayers of this city to stand by while they were beaten and your son killed.” The city is lucky he didn’t send in his badge as well.

Everyone knows exactly what happened in Seattle and the other cities–black mobs targeted whites for mayhem and murder–but no one will say so, and neither the police nor the media want to admit it. “We’ve got suspects who are males and females, blacks, whites, Asians–even one East Indian,” beams another police sergeant who seems to be a bit thicker than Sgt. Beste. “I don’t know what motivated these people, but basically the common denominator is ‘young and intoxicated.’”

Nor will the city’s black “leadership” acknowledge any responsibility. “We are concerned by how the violence is being portrayed,” James Kelly, president of the local Urban League intoned at a news conference a few days after the bloodshed. “Our fear is that it’s become a race issue.” Gosh, why would anyone ever think it might be a “race issue,” do you think?

But of course it’s not a race issue, if only because the perceptions projected by the media, in so far as the violence was reported at all, depict it the way the police, the city officials and the black “leadership” want it depicted. Everyone’s at fault, you see; everything’s OK; just ‘young and intoxicated’; there’s no racial problem. “Clearly hatred has no place in our community,” the mayor’s spokesman told the press.

He’d better look again. Photos and videos of the violence clearly show blacks attacking, beating and kicking white victims. One local talk show host told The Washington Post, which carried a news story only two weeks after the violence, “I started getting calls from people saying, ‘The newspapers are sweeping this under the rug. It clearly was black on white, nobody wants to report it; what are they afraid of?’” What they’re afraid of is the hard truth that racial hatred does in fact have a rather important place in the community, and that the hatred isn’t found where racial hatred is supposed to be–among whites. In the war against “racism,” in the endless crusade for “racial reconciliation,” it’s always whites who are supposed to repent, confess, apologize, recant, and eventually pay up or get punished or undergo therapy. Whites are supposed to be the haters. Blacks are supposed to be the victims.

Obviously, not all blacks were violent or driven by hatred in Seattle or anywhere else, and obviously there no doubt were violent lawbreakers of all races and backgrounds. But the burden of the evidence is that the violence and presumably the racial hatred that lay at the core of the violence began with blacks.

“The bottom line is that violence has no color,” purrs Mr. Kelly, in a desperate effort to keep the lid on the Big Lie of a white monopoly on racial hate. In Seattle, as in Fresno and Philadelphia, violence certainly did have a color, and the color wasn’t white. Whether the newspapers print it or not, everyone in America knows that truth–except the power holders who insist on denying it to themselves and lying to everyone else.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Race/Ethnicity • Tags: Blacks, Race Riots 
Sam Francis
About Sam Francis

Dr. Samuel T. Francis (1947-2005) was a leading paleoconservative columnist and intellectual theorist, serving as an adviser to the presidential campaigns of Patrick Buchanan and as an editorial writer, columnist, and editor at The Washington Times. He received the Distinguished Writing Award for Editorial Writing of the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) in both 1989 and 1990, while being a finalist for the National Journalism Award (Walker Stone Prize) for Editorial Writing of the Scripps Howard Foundation those same years. His undergraduate education was at Johns Hopkins and he later earned his Ph.D. in modern history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

His books include The Soviet Strategy of Terror(1981, rev.1985), Power and History: The Political Thought of James Burnham (1984); Beautiful Losers: Essays on the Failure of American Conservatism (1993); Revolution from the Middle: Essays and Articles from Chronicles, 1989–1996 (1997); and Thinkers of Our Time: James Burnham (1999). His published articles or reviews appeared in The New York Times, USA Today, National Review, The Spectator (London), The New American, The Occidental Quarterly, and Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture, of which he was political editor and for which he wrote a monthly column, “Principalities and Powers.”