Mobs are all-black; Tribune: we won’t report race until all blacks are in mobs
Jun 23rd, 2011 by Unamused
Chicago is under attack by “packs” (source) of “wild” blacks (source), and the Chicago Tribune thinks you’re racist for noticing. Reporter Mary Schmich wonders, “When a news story omits race, do we really know any less?” (June 8). If you think the answer is “yes, obviously,” you’re not alone: readers gave her a one-star rating, just like they did her editor.
You probably know the basic facts.
It happened Saturday night.
A dozen or so teenage males went on the prowl near North Michigan Avenue in Chicago’s toniest shopping district. They attacked five people, ages 20 to 68. Their loot included a backpack, a wallet, a bike, an iPad, a BlackBerry and an iPod Touch. The cops quickly arrested five alleged assailants, at least three of them from the South Side, and vowed to find the rest.
Right. A dozen — or was it 15 to 20? — young black people went “on the prowl” for “loot” (accurate and obnoxiously unserious phrasing) and attacked five people, four apparently white (so difficult to find out, when reporters like Ms. Schmich won’t do their job) and one visiting Japanese oncologist (CBS Chicago, June 5 and June 6; Chicago Tribune, June 6). The police have charged five blacks for the attacks; a sixth has been charged with mob action, and at least 20 arrested, in connection with the attacks.
Well done, Ms. Schmich. You got the “basic facts” — well, not right, but close.
If you’ve followed the story — and who hasn’t? — there’s another fact that you also know, but it’s one you haven’t read in the Tribune or seen explicitly stated by most of the official media: The young men were black.
The reader response gives me some hope for the future of America:
“Shame on you and the Chicago Tribune for your politically correct crap when doing these type of stories,” one reader emailed several Tribune writers. “This is a diverse city and when you don’t physically describe them, we don’t know who to protect ourselves from.”
I’ve omitted the portion of his note that referred to “them” in ugly language.
God forbid someone should use “ugly language” to refer to these savages! (That’s “people who are savage.”) Why, that could hurt — no, not someone’s face, that’s what baseballs and fists do — no, not Chicago’s economy, that’s what packs of wild blacks “prowling” around robbing people in rich neighborhoods do — but it could definitely probably hurt someone’s feelings!
Another reader wrote: “I can’t imagine that if a gang of white teenagers went to the South Side of Chicago and began attacking African-Americans including a 68-year-old that the race card would be left out of your coverage. … I see a media double standard here.”
You are absolutely correct, anonymous reader: the news media are thoroughly biased in favor of black people.
So why would a news organization avoid a fact? This fact?
It’s a reasonable question, even if many of the people asking it on Internet comment boards have wrapped it up in irrational, irresponsible venom.
You mean they dared to notice the black crime epidemic destroying American cities — destroying their city — and reacted like rational, responsible people should react (namely, with venom)?
I’m ambivalent about the omission of the attackers’ race in the news accounts, but I think I would have decided to leave it out too.
As an editor pointed out when I asked about it, the crimes don’t appear to be racially motivated. There’s no sign the criminals picked victims because they were of a certain race. They picked them because they had certain stuff.
Well, sure. No racial motivation here. It’s just gangs of blacks, and only blacks, crossing the city to attack whites and Asians (mostly whites), and only whites and Asians — well, as far as I can tell. It’s not like reporters in Chicago are actually reporting this story.
“People see it as a media conspiracy,” he said of the decision to leave out their race. “It’s a media quandary.”
How could anyone be so irrational and irresponsible as to see this universal media censorship of the race angle as a “conspiracy”? Why, that’s no different from believing the government is controlled by lizard men from the center of the Earth!
Here’s the quandary, for editors, for cops, for all of us:
Race alone doesn’t predict or explain behavior. Just because this mob was young and black hardly means that all young, black people in groups are a violent mob. Knowing the race of these attackers is no form of protection.
Wrong, Ms. Schmich. You moron. First, race alone does predict and explain behavior. It doesn’t predict or explain it perfectly, but it’s better than nothing. Knowing that the animal outside your front door is a tiger doesn’t predict or explain its behavior perfectly either, but it’s useful information if your objective is to not get eaten. That’s why stereotyping is justified. The potential benefits of learning, from further contact with the tiger, that this particular tiger is not dangerous (e.g., the benefit of leaving through the front door of the house, rather than the back) are outweighed by the potential costs of learning that it is, in fact, dangerous (e.g., the cost of getting eaten).
Now how can skin color predict and explain behavior? Trick question. Race isn’t just skin color; it’s in your blood, it’s in your bones, and it’s in your DNA. You see, race is genetic, and every human behavioral trait is heritable (Eric Turkheimer’s first law of behavior genetics). That’s why there are innate race differences in intelligence and criminality.
Second, everyone knows that not all groups of young blacks are violent mobs. You moron. On the other hand, a lot of them are. The same cannot be said, at this time and in this place, of groups of young whites or young Chinese or young Eskimos. Do you see any reason for reporting the race of these mobs yet?
Third, knowing the race of these attackers is absolutely a form of protection. You moron. (See my example of the tiger, above.) We get it, black-apologist cretins: not every group of two or more blacks is a violent mob. How about groups of two or more blacks at night, in a (formerly) safe — meaning white (and/or Asian) — part of town, dressed like — well, like ghetto black thugs? How about then, when race is part of a more complete profile? Oh, wait, the cretins demand that race alone predict criminality with 100 percent accuracy. Otherwise they won’t report it. And you’re racist for noticing it.
Unless of course the races are reversed.
And yet race is an aspect of what happened Saturday night.
This oughta be good.
It’s a piece of the story simply because we notice. Young men from poor black neighborhoods create mayhem in a wealthy, predominantly white, touristed neighborhood? In the image capital of this historically segregated city? Of course we notice. By “we,” I mean everybody.
Yes, certainly, the real problems here are historical segregation (“historical” meaning “it’s over now, you whiny brat — and how’s that working out for white people, anyway?”) and people noticing black crime.
A friend recounts talking about the attacks with two of her friends. All three are black. One of their first thoughts was: “Oh my God, are they black kids?”
My friend wondered about their race because she worried about how their acts will reflect on all the good black kids.
Oh, those poor good black kids (wherever they may be). They’re being reflected upon by black criminals! That must be… agonizing.
The mother of one of the accused attackers noticed the racial aspect too. The Sun-Times quoted her as saying bails would have been lower if the crimes were on the South or West sides.
“If it’s black-on-black crime,” she said, “nobody cares.”
Look at that, we’ve identified another real problem: racism in the justice system! Except there isn’t any (Unamusement Park’s first law of race and crime). Still, it’s good we brought it up. It distracted everyone from black criminals, preventing any horrific, disfiguring reflections on “good black kids.”
So, yes, the attackers were black. We notice. But how to measure the relevance of the fact?
Here’s a thought, Ms. Schmich: measure it in white victims. You moron.