An excerpt from ‘Too Hateful to Handle,’ Unamusement Park’s soon-to-be-released first book. It is based on this post. BTW the formatting is way better in the book.
Pulitzer Prize-winning black journalist Leonard Pitts Jr. demands an answer: “I asked you a question. … I asked how, given its documented biases against black people, I can trust the justice system” (Lawrence Journal-World). I, too, demand an answer: how, given his documented biases against white people, can I trust Leonard Pitts Jr.?
Ed. — We’ve met Leonard Pitts Jr. twice by this point in the book.
I mean, he fell pretty hard for Dorfman and Schiraldi’s fake study of “minority overrepresentation as perpetrators” (Seattle Times):
Black crime against whites is underreported? On what planet? Study after study and expert after expert tell a completely different story.
For instance, there’s “Off Balance: Youth, Race and Crime in the News”
Maybe he should have read the studies before he wasted “his rich and uncommonly resonant voice” on an argument “so utterly, abysmally, stupidly, self-servingly wrong.”
Ed. — This study is covered in an earlier section of the book.
But all right, let’s give him another chance. “Documented biases” in the justice system — let’s hear it, Leonard. Example number one: “A 2000 Justice Department study finds the justice system to be racially biased.” Yeah, I heard about that (New York Times):
‘Pervasive Disparities’ Found In the Federal Death Penalty’
In the first comprehensive review of the federal death penalty since it was reinstated in 1988, the Justice Department has found significant racial and geographical disparities, say officials who have seen the report.
In 75 percent of the cases in which a federal prosecutor sought the death penalty in the last five years, the defendant has been a member of a minority group, and in more than half of the cases, an African-American, according to the report, which officials said the Justice Department would release on Tuesday.
“It’s troubling,” said an administration official who has reviewed the data. “The president has expressed concern about the problem, and this backs that up.” Another administration official described the report as “disturbing.”
Notice what’s missing: a racial breakdown of capital crimes. How troubled and disturbed should we be, really, that 48% of defendants were black (DOJ), when blacks made up 49% of homicide arrests in 2000, 49% in 2001, 50% in 2002, and so on, year after year?
Well, never mind all that: let’s give a murdering drug lord a six-month reprieve because we’re “concerned about ‘the disturbing racial composition’ of the inmates on federal death row” (New York Times). In a later case, the judge threw out the evidence strictly “because of a statistical pattern suggesting racial bias” in traffic stops (Boston Globe).
A year later, on review, racial bias in the death penalty vanished (Washington Post):
The review was based on an analysis of nearly 900 death penalty cases and is a follow-up of a Justice Department study released last year that found wide racial and geographic disparities in the federal death penalty system.
“There is no evidence of racial bias in the administration of the federal death penalty,” Ashcroft said […]
“Our analysis has confirmed that black and Hispanic defendants were less likely at each stage of the department’s review process to be subjected to the death penalty than white defendants,” Ashcroft said.
That’s a novel definition of racial bias — and it puts a new spin on this (Times):
Ms. Reno’s review process has reduced the apparent racial bias.
In the 682 cases she reviewed in which the defendant was white, she authorized the death penalty 38 percent of the time; when the defendant was black, she authorized the death penalty 25 percent of the time.
Now compare the New York Times coverage of the follow-up study (2001):
‘Attorney General Says Report Shows No Racial and Ethnic Bias…’
As opposed to: ‘Pervasive Disparities Found…’ in 2000.
Declaring that he had “no higher priority than protecting the civil rights of all Americans,” Attorney General John Ashcroft said today […]
Versus “the Justice Department has found…”
Critics said today […]
Diann Y. Rust-Tierney, who leads the American Civil Liberties Union’s efforts against capital punishment, said […]
Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan, complained […]
In 2000, not one critic was quoted; in 2001, only critics were quoted.
Guys, you can cut back on the propaganda! There’s really no need for it: in 2003, Senator Russ Feingold was still trying to abolish the death penalty on the grounds that DOJ’s 2000 report “showed [that] who lives and who dies in the Federal system appears to relate to the color of the defendant’s skin,” and the ACLU was still complaining that it “shows that the federal death penalty… is used disproportionately against people of color.”
Not to mention Leonard Pitts Jr., in 2008. That’s two years after the RAND Corporation showed that “controlling for nonracial case characteristics eliminated [race] effects.”
These findings support the view that decisions to seek the death penalty were driven by heinousness of crimes rather than by race.
In other words, death penalty likelihood “rose for murders that were particularly heinous — usually involving a number of aggravating circumstances such as the killing of several victims, sexual abuse of the victim, the killing of an elderly person or a child, premeditated murders where there was extensive planning, killings in which the victim was set on fire, and murders in which the victim was mutilated or dismembered” (RAND).
Now see if you can take a WILD FUCKING GUESS why an unbiased Attorney General would be “far more likely to seek a death sentence in White victim cases” (ACLU).
Here’s how I know, for a fact, that police aren’t biased against blacks. The FBI keeps track of arrests through the Uniform Crime Reporting program, while the Census Bureau counts offenders in the National Crime Victimization Survey. NCVS is an extensive, nationally representative survey of crime victims, and it does not involve the police in any way. Putting the two together, we can compare the racial breakdown of arrests to the racial breakdown of offenders (of known race) as reported by the victims.
Let’s take 2004 to 2008, the last five years for which NCVS data are available, and look at three crimes: aggravated assault, robbery (or mugging), and rape (plus sexual assault); making sure to combine single- and multiple-offender crimes from NCVS. What percentage of offenders were black? How about arrests? (Bearing in mind that blacks make up about 13% of the U.S. population.) You will find the results on the next page.
When Leonard Pitts Jr., or whoever, starts babbling about “documented biases against black people,” he is essentially asking us to believe that it’s easier to frame them for murder, rape and robbery, than round them up for loitering, vandalism and drunkenness:
It goes without saying that cops would rather let a white killer go free than arrest the actual perpetrator. Nope, we’ll just lock up some random black guy. (Still a bit of a mystery why they refuse to arrest Asians: 5% of the population, 1% of violent crime arrests.)
Not that there aren’t statistics on the other side of the debate! “Green jobs” racketeer and cop-killer enthusiast Van Jones teams up with Jason Zeidenberg of the Justice Policy Institute to create perhaps the most offensively stupid document on race and crime I’ve ever seen: ‘ARE Blacks A Criminal Race? Surprising Statistics’ (Huffington Post).
Mr. Jones explains that although “media coverage, conviction rates and ‘common knowledge’ (stereotypes)” are all working together to create the impression that blacks commit a lot of crime, this may be “largely a stereotype, which is driven by the disproportionate rate of ARRESTS and CONVICTIONS of Black [sic] people,” and not at all supported by “the actual government statistics.” Indeed, our “over-focus on Black crime” might just “conceal an alarmingly high crime rate within the white population.” To bolster this remarkable assertion, he has enlisted the statistics of “one of the best minds on the subject.”
“Those who believe that African American or Latino youth are more ‘criminal’ than any other ethnic groups are simply wrong,” Mr. Zeidenberg begins in perfect smugness. “The real facts tell us much more than stereotypes, or musings — both of which obscure the well-documented disparate treatment accorded African Americans compared to whites within the justice system.” Unfortunately, criminal victimization statistics appear nowhere in Mr. Zeidenberg’s analysis — which means he doesn’t have the actual black and Hispanic crime rates, which means he cannot “document” any sort of “disparate treatment.”
Instead, he pops over to drug crime, as did Leo Terrell in debate with Jared Taylor. A favorite tactic of black crime apologists, it allows Zeidenberg to ignore inconvenient facts like this (Color of Crime): “The single best indicator of violent crime levels in an area is the percentage of the population that is black and Hispanic.” This is still true — the correlation hardly changes — after controlling for poverty, unemployment, and lack of education.
No, it’s best to keep the discussion away from violent crime: you want to make sure no one knows that blacks commit 85% of interracial violence; or that they’re more likely to choose a white victim than a black one. Someone might complain. (“Cry me a river.”)
Another reason to focus on drug crime is that you can often get away with claiming that blacks use drugs at the same rate as whites, and therefore racism. Here it is in action:
According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, among youths aged 12 to 17, the rate of current illicit drug use was 11.1% among whites, and 9.3% among African Americans. […] The Monitoring the Future Survey of high school seniors shows that white students annually use cocaine at 4.6 times the rate of African Americans students, use crack cocaine at 1.5 times the rate of African Americans students, and use heroin at the same rate
Both of his sources, and all of his claims, are based on self-reported drug use. That’s self-reported use… of crack cocaine… among high school seniors.
Question 1. yo you smoke crack??
This is the impeccable logic of Human Rights Watch: “Contrary to public belief” and common sense, “the higher arrest rates of black drug offenders do not reflect higher rates of drug law violations. Whites, in fact, commit more drug crimes than blacks” — based on “[survey] questions about drug selling.” (Equally stupid is comparing arrest rates to the total number of crimes, when whites are almost five times as numerous as blacks.)
Question 2. loooool smoke some crak
It is also the reasoning of black pundit Armstrong Williams: “According to the federal Centers for Disease Control, a white adolescent male is four times more likely than his African-American classmate to be a regular cocaine user.” (Also idiotic: the notion that “9 out of 10 serial killers are white males between the ages of 20 and 35.” Actually, blacks made up 32% of all serial killers in the past three decades, and the number is rising.)
Question 3. sooo baked right now
And it is the thesis of Michelle Alexander, the unhinged author of The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness, who uncovers “startling stats: White students used cocaine seven times the rate of Black students, used crack eight times the rate of Black students, used heroin seven times the rate of Black students” (CounterPunch).
Question 420. cant feel my face
It is even the expert testimony to Congress of David Harris: “among black youths… there is evidence that use of all illicit substances has actually been consistently lower than among white youths for twenty years running.” Try swallowing that slice of crazy-cake.
Here’s what bothers me, friends: the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) tracks admissions for drug abuse treatment. In 2006, 49% of “smoked cocaine” admissions were black, along with 25% of “other” cocaine admissions, and 22% of heroin admissions. So blacks were admitted for smoked cocaine at six times the white rate; other cocaine at twice the white rate; and heroin at twice the white rate too.
Between 2004 and 2008, the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) reported that blacks accounted for 35% of emergency room visits for cocaine, heroin, marijuana, PCP, LSD, and meth (here). That’s more than triple the white rate. As “stereotypes” would suggest.
Now, do these figures accurately represent the racial breakdown of drug use? I don’t know, I’m too high to figure this out, but they do confirm that asking high school students if they smoke crack is not a reliable way to gauge drug use. Plus, actual sciens reserch has shown that “black respondents had at least twice the odds of underreporting compared with white/other respondents for every indicator of underreporting” (Oxford Journals).
As it turns out, when a sociology graduate student — let’s say Sudhir Venkatesh — goes wandering around the ghetto, asking people whether or not they smoke crack, black people are no more likely than white people to say: “Why yes, I do smoke crack.”
As I started to climb the stairs, the smell of urine was overpowering. On some floors the stairwells were dark; on others there was a muted glow. I walked up four flights, maybe five, trying to keep count, and then I came upon a landing where a group of young men, high-school age, were shooting dice for money.
“N¡gger, what the fuck are you doing here?” one of them shouted. I tried to make out their faces, but in the fading light I could barely see a thing.
I tried to explain, again. “I’m a student at the university, doing a survey, and I’m looking for some families.”
The young men rushed up to me, within inches of my face. […]
“C’mon, n¡gger!” one of the younger men shouted. “We know you’re with somebody, just tell us who.”
Another one, laughing, pulled something out of his waistband. At first I couldn’t tell what it was, but then it caught a glint of light and I could see that it was a gun. […]
Two of the other young men started to search my bag. They pulled out the questionnaire sheets, pen and paper, a few sociology books, my keys. […]
By now I was sweating despite the cold. I leaned backward to try to get some light to fall on the questionnaire. The first question was one I had adapted from several other similar surveys; it was one of a set of questions that targeted young people’s self-perceptions.
“How does it feel to be black and poor?” I read. Then I gave the multiple-choice answers: “Very bad, somewhat bad, neither bad nor good, somewhat good, very good.”
The guy with the too-big hat began to laugh, which prompted the others to start giggling.
“Fuck you!” he told me. “You got to be fucking kidding me.”
But do go on, Professor Zeidenberg. “According to the Center on [sic] Disease Control’s annual Youth Risk Behavior Survey, in 2001 whites and African Americans reported similar rates of carrying a weapon… and similar rates of carrying a gun… African Americans report being in a physical fight at a similar rate,” and “both report similar rates of delinquency.” Hard data — from the demographic that brought you “Stop Snitching.”
So much for “the real facts.” I’d stick with stereotyping, if I were you.
Statistical anti-black bias in the justice system is a lie. Sometimes it’s easy to refute (see above); other times, slightly less easy. Christ, even the New York Times has sort of figured this out. What’s that? “Black felons… receive longer maximum sentences”?
Prosecutors say — and researchers agree — that the statistics cannot possibly capture the whole story, because analyzing how the legal system treats different people is difficult. […] it is very hard to identify defendants of different races who are otherwise in very similar situations, because every crime is different.
“You also have to understand why there is a difference in treatment” in different cases, said James P. Fox, district attorney in Redwood City, Calif., and the president of the National District Attorneys Association. “Is it because of prior failures on probation? Is it because of the seriousness of injuries to the victim?”
David Baldus, whose study of death penalty cases in Georgia for the McCleskey case is viewed as one of the most sophisticated, agreed that the numbers must be carefully analyzed. “If you look at death row, it’s 40 percent African-American in this country and then people blithely compare it to the percentage of blacks in the population, and that’s 12.5 percent,” he said. “You’re not adjusting for the participation of blacks in homicides.”
Basic stuff — but we’re not going let racist facts stand in the way of Social Justice.
“Quantitative and qualitative evidence collected at the federal, state, and local levels confirms that racial profiling persists” (CivilRights.org). And how do we know this? Traffic stops and searches are “disproportionate” relative to the “total population.”
“Racial bias permeates the Minnesota justice system” (Hamline Law Review): it’s “extensive,” “substantial,” indeed “rampant,” and it’s “getting worse and not better.” And we know this because… “Recent studies show that African Americans in Minnesota are arrested for violent crimes at a rate twenty-five times higher” and so on and so forth.
In Washington State, census figures reveal that “black men and women were incarcerated at a disproportionately high rate” (Spokesman-Review). “Experts say drug policies explain the racial disparities… despite equal amounts of drug use across racial lines.”
If you can’t find police “bias,” you can always broaden the definition. Internal Affairs in San Jose rejected four years’ of worth “racial profiling or other bias allegations against city cops,” so now, in a move celebrated by “minority community leaders,” the department has changed its policy, “making it a violation for an officer to show any biased behavior at any time during an encounter with the public” (Mercury News). It has also stopped officers impounding the cars of unlicensed drivers, “a practice many felt was unfairly targeting undocumented Latino immigrants.” Unfair targeting — of unlicensed illegals.
Not satisfied with merely identifying the fake problem, the activist-journalist-sociologist complex is quick to suggest solutions, always involving the expansion of bureaucracy.
Because “higher rates of black drug arrests do not reflect higher rates of black drug offending,” all levels of government must “ensure the enforcement of drug laws does not disproportionately burden black communities,” and “take appropriate action to eliminate racially disparate treatment” in all “police activities” (Human Rights Watch).
Given that blacks are disproportionately “exonerated by DNA testing” (sample size 242), proving “racial bias in the criminal justice system,” the NAACP Criminal Justice Program is “actively litigating” to “force a change in policy” (Innocence Project). While we’re at it, we’d better “reform [the] mental connection between race and criminality.”
Our pal Jason Zeidenberg applauds the Justice Department for “working to reduce the racial disparity seen in juvenile arrests and juvenile imprisonment.” Congress also “has promoted policies to ease those disparities.” You know, because “African American youth arrest rates for drug violations, assaults and weapon offenses are higher than arrest rates for white youth — even though both report similar rates of delinquency.”
Wait a minute: in real life (whether or not it shows up on a survey) Zeidenberg’s “African American youth” have much higher rates of — well, every crime, actually; certainly including drug violations, assaults, and weapon offenses. So what exactly is the Justice Department doing, when they claim to be “working to reduce” a nonexistent “racial disparity”?
What would it mean to “eliminate racially disparate treatment,” when “disparate treatment” just means that black arrest rates match black crime rates? And what sort of “change in policy” can sever the “mental connection between” two related factors?
Attorney General Reno “reduced the apparent racial bias” in capital punishment by disproportionately executing white defendants. Attorney General Ashcroft sees “no evidence of racial bias” when white defendants are demonstrably more likely “at each stage of the department’s review process to be subjected to the death penalty.”
Today, under Attorney General Eric “My People” Holder, DOJ Civil Rights is “reluctant to take cases of white victims” (Washington Times). In its report, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights cited “numerous specific examples of open hostility and opposition.”
Testimony obtained by the panel during its investigation included allegations that some Justice Department lawyers refused to work on cases involving white victims; that lawyers who worked on such cases were harassed and ostracized; and that some employees, including supervisory attorneys and political appointees, openly opposed race-neutral enforcement of voting rights laws.
Across the pond, for at least three decades now, imported Pakistanis have been raping and generally abusing untold numbers of English white girls, “but police had not gone public about the problem for fear of upsetting ethnic groups” (Daily Star). According to former Detective Superintendent Mick Gradwell, “The main pressure police have is being called institutionally racist if they highlight a crime trend like this.”
At least England’s “all-white juries” are “not guilty” of racial “bias” (Guardian).
In fact, it seems all juries are more likely to convict white defendants, and notably, some white juries […] are more likely to convict a white defendant if the victim of the assault was black or Asian. […] the jury is one element in the criminal justice system that seems to treat black and Asian defendants fairly.
Because race-neutral enforcement isn’t what they have in mind. “The colorblind thesis, the notion that ‘race’ does not or should not matter and that society and its laws are or can be colorblind, is simply unfounded” (Michigan Journal of Race and Law, my emphasis).
Welcome to critical race theory.
“The original trauma was the sin of slavery, followed by the assault of Jim Crow, then by today’s battles waged by Color-Blind Warriors” (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law). These “right-wing intellectuals” want to let whites off the hook for “subconscious forms of racial bias” including “self-fulfilling stereotypes” and “failures of imagination.”
Meanwhile, Jeannine Bell “addresses a particular instance of societal blindness in the here-and-now: the failure to adequately recognize the important contribution of ‘anti-[white] violence’ to racially segregated housing patterns in the United States.” White people prefer “largely [white] neighborhoods ‘because they fear [black] hostility and the violence associated with it,’ ” a fear which “stems from realistic [white] perceptions.” Although “society is… not entirely blind to anti-[white] violence… when the supposedly rare instance of anti-[white] violence is noticed and brought to the attention of the police, they often do not see it for the race-motivated crime that it is.” I’m kidding, of course: swap the races (black for white), and watch out for that scary “anti-integrationist violence.”
It’s quite impressive, really, how the author manages to perfectly invert reality.
We live in an “era of color-blind racism,” “a de facto racism where people of color, especially African Americans, are subject to unequal protection of the laws, excessive surveillance, … and neo-slave labor via incarceration” (American Behavioral Scientist): “disproportionately policed, prosecuted, convicted, disenfranchised, and imprisoned.”
Now, “the rhetoric of color-blind racism… a co-optation and subversion of the dream of Dr. King” by “so-called ‘racial realists,’ ” “would have us believe that this situation is the unfortunate result of disproportionate Black and Latino participation in crime.” This, however, merely reflects a “racist and classist economic and political agenda.”
The solution to the problem, which was created by progressive post-war social policies (in conjunction with evolution), is — even more progressive social policies: “organized political struggle and radical pedagogies for change… transform[ing] for social justice.”
As we have seen, the call for social justice cannot rely on civil justice or macro-level remedies alone; law has been the handmaiden of what hooks [sic] (1992) has termed “the white supremacist capitalist patriarchy” […]
The work of justice must begin at the micro level […]
The true underpinnings of criminal justice […] must be surfaced via radical and relentless pedagogies of resistance; […] they must be surfaced through the research, writing, and teaching of those whom Mumia Abu-Jamal (2005) called “radical intellectuals”
Okay, so these people are completely fucking nuts. So what?
Well, for starters, there are a lot of them, and they’re very loud. The message is getting out, and plenty of blacks are willing to “[begin] the work of justice… at the micro level.”
Scores to Settle
When he slaughtered four people, Brian G. Nichols “considered himself a ‘soldier on a mission’… a wrongly accused man in a legal system unfair to African-Americans… angry that many of the inmates around him were also black” (AJC). “ ‘He called it systematic slavery.’ ” What do you think? I dunno, I feel like neo-slave labor just sounds cooler.
Previously, we talked about how the rhetoric of critical race theory is used to justify black-on-white violence. I’m hardly the first to have noticed this, and it is hardly a new phenomenon. As I’ve mentioned, if you’ve ever wondered what Susan Brownmiller meant by “rape is a crime not of lust, but power,” you’ll find the roots of our relentless pedagogies of resistance in the work of depraved black revolutionary psychiatrist Frantz Fanon. (Bill Ayers wrote him into Barack Obama’s college years: late-night dorm room discussions of “neocolonialism, Franz [sic] Fanon, Eurocentrism and patriarchy” (Dreams from My Father).)
This is not the only tremendously evil thing critical race theory has accomplished.
In case you haven’t noticed, “urban jurors, particularly African-Americans, have grown increasingly willing in recent years to acquit defendants they believe are guilty if they detect any abuse of police power” (Baltimore Sun). And I suppose it’s possible their detection capabilities are better than Jason Zeidenberg and friends’ — but I’m not optimistic.
According to a black former federal prosecutor, now professor, these urban jurors have become “extremely sensitive” — that’s an excellent choice of words — “to certain patterns of testimony or to lapses in accepted police procedure.” Again, I suppose it’s possible their pattern recognition is better than urban journalists like Leonard Pitts Jr., but…
Curtis Lavelle Vance, serial rapist of white women, smashed Anne Pressly’s head apart with his fists and left her to die in what the Associated Press called “a suspected burglary.” Kristen Edwards considers herself lucky just to have been raped (Arkansas Times).
Given how good the DNA evidence is in the Marianna rape, how much of a slam dunk it seems […] not to mention the fact that Vance took the stand in the rape trial and testified that he had, in fact, told Little Rock detectives in a taped confession that he was in Edwards’ house on the morning of the rape, it was confusing for a lot of people when on Feb. 3, a jury in Marianna decided they couldn’t reach a verdict. The case was declared a mistrial.
The jury split seven to five along strictly racial lines — seven blacks and five whites. Even though it would be hard to find a genetics expert in the world who would tell you there was more than an unfathomably remote chance that the semen found inside the victim belonged to anyone other than Curtis Vance, the fact of the matter is this: All the white members of the jury were apparently swayed by that evidence, while all the black jurors were not.
Black jury nullification: call it a radical pedagogy for change.
[Prosecutor Fletcher] Long told the story of another Marianna rape trial he was involved in a few years back […] After the second mistrial in that case with the jury again split strictly on racial lines, the victim decided not to press it any further. Unlike Curtis Vance, that defendant — innocent until proven guilty in a court of law — is walking the streets of Marianna today.
It’s only one of the cases in the area, Long said, where a trial involving DNA wound up with “equally bizarre results” broken down on racial lines. “I’ve seen it in other types of cases,” Long said. “Although it gets particularly difficult to deal with in black/white crime” […]
Long said that the origins of that kind of thinking might lie with the media. “I think we spend so much time in the news nationwide and local to our state underlining, in the process of saying mea culpa, all the unjust things that have been done to blacks in the past, which creates a psychology of, almost, an ‘I’m going to level the score’ type thing.”
Meanwhile, the Center for Crime Prevention and Control rationalizes “ ‘stop snitching’ culture” (NPR): “What is really going on is that, after centuries of bad treatment at the hands of the outside world, … it has become mainstream thought in many minority, especially African-American communities, that law enforcement is the enemy, and good people do not treat with the enemy.” And street thugs are just looking to “finish school.”
Crime journalist Radley Balko is still “astonished to hear one hip-hop artist and activist say he would not cooperate with the police even if he had witnessed the rape and murder of an old woman in broad daylight” (Reason). Maybe you should adjust your expectations.
But once again, this is hardly a new phenomenon. As Winfield H. Collins wrote in The Truth About Lynching and the Negro in the South (1918): “Seldom is it found that the Negro will aid in the detection of the Negro criminal, rather otherwise.”
Or as Thomas Nelson Page wrote at length in The Southerner’s Problem (1904):
Conditions in the South render the commission of this crime [rape] peculiarly easy. The white population is sparse, the forests are extensive, the officers of the law distant and difficult to reach; but, above all, the Negro population have appeared inclined to condone the fact of mere assault.
The criminal, under the ministrations of his preachers, usually professed to have “got religion,” and from the shadow of the gallows called on his friends to follow him to glory. So that the punishment lost to these emotional people much of its deterrent force, especially where the real sympathy of the race was mainly with the criminal rather than with his victim. […]
For a time, a speedy execution by hanging was the only mode of retribution resorted to by the lynchers; then, when this failed of its purpose, a more savage method was essayed, born of a savage fury at the failure of the first, and a stern resolve to strike a deeper terror into those whom the other method had failed to awe.
A close following of the instances of rape and lynching, and the public discussion consequent thereon, have led the writer to the painful realization that even the leaders of the Negro race — at least, those who are prominent enough to hold conventions and write papers on the subject — have rarely, by act or word, shown a true appreciation of the enormity of the crime of ravishing and murdering women. Their discussion and denunciation have been almost invariably and exclusively devoted to the crime of lynching. Underlying most of their protests is the suggestion that the victim of the mob is innocent and a martyr.
Or as William Winwood Reade wrote in Savage Africa (1864):
It is one of the chief peculiarities of the Sierra Leone negro that he hates, with an intense and bitter hatred, this white man to whom he owes every thing. […]
This hatred of the white man becomes really dangerous in a court of justice, when cases of black v. white come before black juries. These men do not want for intelligence; but they form no idea of the sacredness of their calling, and give verdicts at will where their private feelings are concerned. […]
[A Mr. Shreeve observes] that the negro’s system of physiognomy tends to represent all men bad who happen to be white, and that the white man can not obtain justice in Sierra Leone; […] quoting an instance in which a man who had killed another (probably a white victim) was found Not Guilty in spite of all evidence, “a decision at which even the culprit himself appeared astonished, and a virtuous indignation from many ran through the hall” […]
Finally he adds, “Here Justice should be painted like Le Brun’s Revenge, with a bowl and dagger, not with the balance and the sword.”
Today, of course, we all realize that lynching was actually an endless series of hate crimes perpetrated by racist white folks (redundant, I know) against poor, innocent, long-suffering black folks — and of course we teach this to the least intelligent, most violent demographic.
And the War on Hate rages on.