Much of [David] Simon’s work focuses on the troubles of low-income African Americans, be they heroin dealers or trombone players. It’s a preoccupation he shares with a long line of American Jewish social activists and cultural figures, from early abolitionists to the Jews who helped found the NAACP to the Jewish Freedom Riders murdered in the early 1960s. When I bring that up, though, Simon brushes aside the comparison. “The Freedom Riders and NAACP founders were doing something far more substantive, and in the case of the Freedom Riders, risking far, far more,” he says. “I wouldn’t put myself in that category under any circumstances.”
Nonetheless, he’s very conscious of that history.
Police, gunmen open fire on South Beach; two officers injured – MiamiHerald.com expands on what’s happening in this video.
We could say that diversity, i.e. less White people, isn’t “our” strength, it’s their strength. But that would be “racist”. When the diverse question how much diversity is good for themselves, that’s another story.
It shows our city as nothing short of a warzone – Filthy streets, a drive by shooting, multiple cars crashed in the process, and total chaos on the streets. This is unacceptable and must be controlled before we totally lose our city, tourism & residents. It is not limited to Ocean Drive or Collins – there isn’t a residential street in South Beach not affected by tons of garbage, crime to our vehicles, excessive noise 24 hours a day, and simply a lack of respect for our community, citizens & property. THIS is the image the world see of our “American Riviera”.
When did perceived political or social correctness override the safety & well-being of a community? This is not a race, economic or ethnic issue, it is an issue of visitors who have a total lack of respect for our community, its property & citizens. I know hotel rooms are filled, but at what price and for how long?
If Whites were involved in violence of this sort in any significant way the media would no doubt be filled with outraged non-White voices directing fear and loathing at the ugly, stupid, greedy, lazy people involved. Heck, that’s how they talk about the Tea Party, even when there is no criminality or violence they can point at.
But in this case, if you hadn’t already guessed, the criminality and violence associated with Miami’s Urban Weekend is ineffably black. So very circumspect odecay-eakspay is the rule.
A decade after Internet buzz, radio DJs and word of mouth spawned the first Urban Beach Week — turning a typically busy but low-key holiday weekend into a hip-hop fueled street party that drew an estimated 250,000 people — the annual, unofficial bash still draws mixed reviews.
Hoteliers rejoice at booked rooms, while some restaurateurs and retailers lament that the often-rowdy crowds drive off locals.
Fans and performers say the parties have evolved, attracting older fans and even families. Yet some neighbors gripe about young people drinking and dancing in front of their homes. And then there’s the cost of policing the event, expected to reach roughly $1 million this weekend.
While the event draws a largely black crowd, David Kelsey, president of the South Beach Hotel & Restaurant Association, says friction over the holiday weekend has been less about race than the conflict between the young party crowd and the luxury tourist clientele Miami Beach actively courts.
“There’s still a gulf between the crowd we’re attracting and the crowd we really want to attract and need for future business,” Kelsey said.
Between the fact that the crowd is overwhelmingly black and its behavior is being criticized, you might think it’s a slam dunk to paint “racism” as the problem.
As we’ve been told for decades now, “racism” is a White thing, and there just aren’t many Whites involved here, except in running away. The people being imposed upon by diversity are diverse. Thus the story gets the “it’s really really complicated” treatment. Like Miami’s black/hispanic political squabble, this isn’t about race – definitely not – it’s about, well, stay tuned they’re feverishly working on the narrative that ties it all to “racism”.
Carlene Sawyer, former president of the Greater Miami chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said she has seen more mature visitors recently.
“You hear all this rhetoric,” said Sawyer, who as in other years will be on South Beach to monitor the city’s policing of the crowds. “But the people who are coming are buying plane tickets and hotel rooms. And they’re not 18 anymore. They’re 25, 30 and 35 years old.”
Hip hop artists like Ludacris and Busta Rhymes have helped draw crowds typically estimated between 200,000 and 300,000 each year — rivaling even Super Bowl throngs.
“This is the best time of year for us,” said Monika Olimpiew, general manager of SoBe Live, a club that this weekend is featuring acts like rap group Travis Porter and R&B singer Keri Hilson.
People on scooters weave around the Lamborghinis and bass-thumping Cadillacs that crawl down Ocean Drive — which will be closed to traffic this year. The street scene has been good to Prestige Luxury Auto Rentals in Miami, which had rented out 80 percent of its stock by Tuesday, including all its $2,000-a-day Lamborghinis and even pricier Ferraris.
So much for the disingenuous suggestion in the quote above that the conflict is between “the young party crowd” and “the luxury tourist clientele”. On Urban Beach Week these groups are one and the same.
Perception of crime and violence has been one of Urban Beach Week’s biggest issues.
Miami Beach Commissioner Ed Tobin said last year he rode with police to see what officers deal with, including gun confiscations — 24 last year, down from a peak of 73 in 2006.
“I would not want anyone that I know, a friend or visitor, to be outside on South Beach after 11 p.m. on this weekend because it is dangerous despite what seemed like thousands of police officers at every corner,” he said.
Perceptions are only taken seriously when they come from non-Whites. Perceptions are only taken as problematic when they reflect badly on non-Whites. In Miami we see both, and therein lies the media’s conundrum in covering (literally) what’s happening during Urban Beach Week.
For Police Chief Carlos Noriega, dealing with the crowds has been tricky. On one hand, his department has been criticized as being too lax. On the other, they were accused of racial profiling by the ACLU and NAACP in 2006 after arresting more than 1,000 people.
Now, police typically meet with ACLU representatives and the U.S. Department of Justice to go over enforcement plans. Noriega said police now overlook minor offenses and focus more on major crimes and crowd control.
“This is something we’ve become accustomed to,” he said.
Don’t worry, the ACLU and NAACP are in control.
We long ago became accustomed to seeing violence in our cities. The same pattern of violent behavior repeats itself whenever and wherever a critical mass of non-Whites collect. Today a related pattern is associated with the critical mass of non-Whites in media and non-White activist organizations. They make excuses and redirect blame to protect the fragile egos of non-Whites. What’s good for non-Whites is regarded as an important and interesting debate. The question of what’s good for Whites is regarded as a sign of insane evil. In Miami, where so few Whites remain (82.4% diverse and quickly approaching perfection), the question doesn’t even come up.
UPDATE 1 Jun 2011: The original video was withdrawn. Replaced it with another version.
Chris Rock Quotes on Tea Party, Obama, Oscars Jude Law and More, interviewed by Scott Raab at Esquire, 16 Feb 2011:
SR: Like many nice Caucasians, I cried the night Barack Obama was elected. It was one of the high points in American history. And all that’s happened since the election is just a shitstorm of hatred. You want to weigh in on that?
CR: I actually like it, in the sense that — you got kids? Kids always act up the most before they go to sleep. And when I see the Tea Party and all this stuff, it actually feels like racism’s almost over. Because this is the last — this is the act up before the sleep. They’re going crazy. They’re insane. You want to get rid of them — and the next thing you know, they’re fucking knocked out. And that’s what’s going on in the country right now.
SR: I hope so. Because it seems like a lot of people feel they just can’t live with this man being president.
Rock has made a living on race-based comedy. Here’s a skit that’s right in line with what Rock told Raab, making it crystal clear how he and his black fans view Whites. If that wasn’t clear enough, here’s another.
Wikipedia says “Raab is a self-professed ‘fat Jew from Cleveland'”.
Joe Sobran wrote something apt that comes to mind here:
Western man towers over the rest of the world in ways so large as to be almost inexpressible.
It’s Western exploration, science, and conquest that have revealed the world to itself.
Other races feel like subjects of Western power long after colonialism, imperialism, and slavery have disappeared.
The charge of racism puzzles whites who feel not hostility, but only baffled good will, because they don’t grasp what it really means: humiliation.
The white man presents an image of superiority even when he isn’t conscious of it. And, superiority excites envy.
Destroying white civilization is the inmost desire of the league of designated victims we call minorities.
– Sobran’s — April 1997
Thirty thousand people showed up to receive Section 8 housing applications in East Point Wednesday, suffering through hours in the hot sun, angry flare-ups in the crowd and lots of frustration and confusion for a chance to receive a government-subsidized apartment.
The Housing Choice Voucher Program, called Section 8, subsidized the rents of low-income families living in apartments and houses that are privately owned. The federal program makes up the difference in rent that the poor can afford and the fair market value for each area.
The same media pundits who pathologize the Tea Party as violent and greedy and too White won’t be saying anything like that about this seething crowd of self-interested blacks, or how desperate they are to be delivered from their own kind.
Hanna Rosin’s American Murder Mystery tries to bury the answer to the “mystery” of the relationship between Section 8 and crime in paragraphs of tedious, turgid obfuscation. I’ll try here to cut through it.
Memphis has always been associated with some amount of violence. But why has Elvis’s hometown turned into America’s new South Bronx? [Lieutenant Doug] Barnes thinks he knows one big part of the answer, as does the city’s chief of police. A handful of local criminologists and social scientists think they can explain it, too. But it’s a dismal answer, one that city leaders have made clear they don’t want to hear. It’s an answer that offers up racial stereotypes to fearful whites in a city trying to move beyond racial tensions. Ultimately, it reaches beyond crime and implicates one of the most ambitious antipoverty programs of recent decades.
Note that neither Rosin or any of the people she quotes in this article, except perhaps the police, sympathize with the “fearful” Whites. Never once is the terrible cost to Whites mentioned. The main reason this is a “dismal” tale “they don’t want to hear” is that Section 8 has not helped non-Whites as much as they would have liked.
[University of Memphis Criminologist Richard] Janikowski might not have managed to pinpoint the cause of this pattern if he hadn’t been married to Phyllis Betts, a housing expert at the University of Memphis. Betts and Janikowski have two dogs, three cats, and no kids; they both tend to bring their work home with them. Betts had been evaluating the impact of one of the city government’s most ambitious initiatives: the demolition of the city’s public-housing projects, as part of a nationwide experiment to free the poor from the destructive effects of concentrated poverty. Memphis demolished its first project in 1997. The city gave former residents federal “Section8” rent-subsidy vouchers and encouraged them to move out to new neighborhoods. Two more waves of demolition followed over the next nine years, dispersing tens of thousands of poor people into the wider metro community.
About six months ago, they decided to put a hunch to the test. Janikowski merged his computer map of crime patterns with Betts’s map of Section8 rentals. Where Janikowski saw a bunny rabbit, Betts saw a sideways horseshoe (“He has a better imagination,” she said). Otherwise, the match was near-perfect. On the merged map, dense violent-crime areas are shaded dark blue, and Section8 addresses are represented by little red dots. All of the dark-blue areas are covered in little red dots, like bursts of gunfire. The rest of the city has almost no dots.
Betts remembers her discomfort as she looked at the map. The couple had been musing about the connection for months, but they were amazed—and deflated—to see how perfectly the two data sets fit together. She knew right away that this would be a “hard thing to say or write.” Nobody in the antipoverty community and nobody in city leadership was going to welcome the news that the noble experiment that they’d been engaged in for the past decade had been bringing the city down, in ways they’d never expected. But the connection was too obvious to ignore, and Betts and Janikowski figured that the same thing must be happening all around the country.
After decades of pathologizing millions of “fearful” Whites who objected to Section 8 and other government-imposed racial integration programs as morally and/or mentally defective, statistics show that our fears were justified. But that isn’t what Betts is “discomforted” or “deflated” about. What’s such a “hard thing to say or write” is that crime and poverty and blackness are connected.
Betts’s office is filled with books about knocking down the projects, an effort considered by fellow housing experts to be their great contribution to the civil-rights movement. The work grew out of a long history of white resistance to blacks’ moving out of what used to be called the ghetto. During much of the 20th century, white people used bombs and mobs to keep black people out of their neighborhoods. In 1949 in Chicago, a rumor that a black family was moving onto a white block prompted a riot that grew to 10,000 people in four days. “Americans had been treating blacks seeking housing outside the ghetto not much better than … [the] cook treated the dog who sought a crust of bread,” wrote the ACLU lawyer and fair-housing advocate Alexander Polikoff in his book Waiting for Gautreaux.
Polikoff is a hero to Betts and many of her colleagues. In August 1966, he filed two related class-action suits against the Chicago Housing Authority and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, on behalf of a woman named Dorothy Gautreaux and other tenants. Gautreaux wanted to leave the ghetto, but the CHA offered housing only in neighborhoods just like hers. Polikoff became notorious in the Chicago suburbs; one community group, he wrote, awarded him a gold-plated pooper-scooper “to clean up all the shit” he wanted to bring into the neighborhood. A decade later, he argued the case before the Supreme Court and won. Legal scholars today often compare the case’s significance to that of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka.
It could be argued that the genocidal monsters who imposed this nightmare might have done so out of ignorance. At least as first. For those who continue to support it now there is no explanation but anti-White animus. Here we can see that animus in the depiction of White violence, decades past, in the same tired pathologizing terms. Why else ignore the self-defensive motivations of Whites long since proven justified, and why present White violence as worse than the more brutal, more enduring, and more widespread black violence perpetrated since?
A well-known Gautreaux study, released in 1991, showed spectacular results. The sociologist James Rosenbaum at Northwestern University had followed 114 families who had moved to the suburbs, although only 68 were still cooperating by the time he released the study. Compared to former public-housing residents who’d stayed within the city, the suburban dwellers were four times as likely to finish high school, twice as likely to attend college, and more likely to be employed. Newsweek called the program “stunning” and said the project renewed “one’s faith in the struggle.” In a glowing segment, a 60 Minutes reporter asked one Gautreaux boy what he wanted to be when he grew up. “I haven’t really made up my mind,” the boy said. “Construction worker, architect, anesthesiologist.” Another child’s mother declared it “the end of poverty” for her family.
In 1992, 7-year-old Dantrell Davis from the Cabrini-Green project was walking to school, holding his mother’s hand, when a stray bullet killed him. The hand-holding detail seemed to stir the city in a way that none of the other murder stories coming out of the high-rises ever had. “Tear down the high rises,” demanded an editorial in the Chicago Tribune, while that boy’s image “burns in our civic memory.”
If replacing housing projects with vouchers had achieved its main goal—infusing the poor with middle-class habits—then higher crime rates might be a price worth paying. But today, social scientists looking back on the whole grand experiment are apt to use words like baffling and disappointing. A large federal-government study conducted over the past decade—a follow-up to the highly positive, highly publicized Gautreaux study of 1991—produced results that were “puzzling,” said Susan Popkin of the Urban Institute.
More fitting words for “the whole grand experiment”, as well as those who aid and abet it: mendacious, fraudulent, genocidal. Criminal.
The best Popkin can say is: “It has not lived up to its promise. It has not lifted people out of poverty, it has not made them self-sufficient, and it has left a lot of people behind.”
For Popkin, Rosin, Janikowski, Betts, Polikoff, Rosenbaum, The Atlantic, Newsweek, 60 Minutes, and their fellow travellers, what’s really important is that non-Whites haven’t benefitted enough. No apologies to the victims of their violence. No refunds for those who have been forced to fund their own genocide.
The article concludes with a talmudic shrug, magically transferring the blame to Whites:
It’s difficult to contemplate solutions to this problem when so few politicians, civil servants, and academics seem willing to talk about it—or even to admit that it exists. Janikowski and Betts are in an awkward position. They are both white academics in a city with many African American political leaders. Neither of them is a Memphis native. And they know that their research will fuel the usual NIMBY paranoia about poor people destroying the suburbs. “We don’t want Memphis to be seen as the armpit of the nation,” Betts said. “And we don’t want to be the ones responsible for framing these issues in the wrong way.”
Pathologizing Whites as “paranoid” is how these issues have long been framed.
Alexander Polikoff’s Gautreaux Proposal, written in Nov/Dec 2004, puts it this way:
Ending black ghettos wouldn’t end anti-black attitudes any more than ending Jewish ghettos ended anti-semitism. But it is not easy to find anything in American society that matches the black ghetto for its poisoning effect on attitudes, values and conduct.
Sixty years ago, Gunnar Myrdal wrote: “White prejudice and discrimination keep the Negro low in standards of living, health, education, manners and morals. This, in its turn, gives support to white prejudice.” Decades later, sociologist Elijah Anderson’s studies of a ghetto and an adjacent non-ghetto neighborhood led him to conclude: “The public awareness is color-coded. White skin denotes civility, law-abidingness, and trustworthiness, while black skin is strongly associated with poverty, crime, incivility, and distrust.” In American society at large, most whites act like the ones Anderson studied — their public awareness is also color-coded, and they steer clear of poor blacks and keep them in their ghettos. Predictable ghetto behavior then intensifies whites’ sense of danger, validates their color-coding and drives their conduct.
Sixty years ago this kind of anti-White guilt-tripping might have seemed brave or iconoclastic. Today the government and blacks are the ones inflicting violence on Whites. We can see that “prejudice and discrimination” don’t cause black poverty, crime, and incivility. Blacks know it. They prove it by suffering through hours in the hot sun to get an application to be put on a waiting list so they can escape and live amongst Whites. We know that they bring their poverty, crime, and incivility with them.
Knowing all this, we are justified in distrusting, opposing, and even despising the professional grievance mongers who are complicit in it. Their sympathies for blacks, even if sincere, don’t excuse the harm their twisted thinking has caused Whites.
UPDATE 12 Aug 2010: More on Janikowski and Betts via James Edwards.
Couple’s findings link crime in Memphis to Section 8 voucher renters » The Commercial Appeal, by Fredric Koeppel, 11 Sept 2008:
In other words, crime follows poverty wherever it goes.
“Well, that’s a bit of a simplification,” said Janikowski, associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of Memphis and director of the Center for Community Criminology and Research, “though that’s the way our studies have been interpreted. Crime and poverty are inextricably linked, there’s no question, but it’s not that poverty causes crime. Poverty creates a contact point that exacerbates all sorts of stresses on people. It’s not that there’s any one cause. It’s a confluence of stresses.”
In other words, crime and poverty and other stresses follow blacks wherever they go. There is no question that Section 8 has shifted crime and poverty to neighborhoods previously unafflicted by such problems. There is no question this has exacerbated all sorts of stresses on the people in these predominantly White neighborhoods, impoverishing them and making them miserable enough to leave, if they can. Clearly Janikowski isn’t talking about these stresses. The attempt here is to obfuscate the link between blackness and crime and poverty. And it is done even while the problems are deliberately simplified and explicitly linked to Whiteness, which is consistently offered both as the only cause for the problems and as the only obstacle to ending them.
As outsiders to Memphis and as a couple committed to public service, Betts and Janikowski feel keenly the ambivalence of their position. They have, after all, and almost inadvertently, delivered the bad news that the Section 8 housing program in Memphis is not working. They are white college professors, trained in academic research; most residents of public housing are poor and black and uneducated.
The “bad news” here is not that Section 8 has been foisted on Whites who don’t want it, justified by historic anti-White stereotypes and libels, and when it is empirically demonstrated not to lift blacks out of poverty and crime, that this too is blamed on Whites. That’s just how the “bad news” (i.e. blackness is linked to crime and poverty) has been framed. It is classic blame-the-victim apologia from fulminating hypocrites who make their living sniffing out and pathologizing stereotypes, libels, and blaming-the-victim. The bad news for Whites is that Section 8 exists – that there’s no question we, as a group, pay for it and are harmed by it.
At that meeting [where Betts and Janikowski presented their findings to the Memphis City Council] was Robert Lipscomb, director of the city’s Housing and Community Development division. He remains among their most vocal detractors.
Lipscomb is black. He unequivocally describes Section 8 participants as “the victims of crime, not the cause”.
“Well, Robert has his viewpoint,” said Janikowski. “Maybe we should have put it differently, not emphasized vouchers so much. We have gotten local feedback that has been much more positive, but people have been saying racist things.”
“There’s been so much follow-up at the national level from people who have no background at the local level,” said Betts. “The feeling that we share ideas with right-wing bloggers is devastating.”
Janikowski regrets that he didn’t try sooner and harder to frame the problems even more simply and explicitly as being caused by “racists” and “right-wing bloggers”. The fact is that Whites at the local level have been deliberately harmed by the anti-White/pro-black policies. These policies are advocated by dishonest snake-oil salesmen operating at the national level, who are provided megaphones by media and academia and courts to broadcast their poisonous ideas.
Oddly, last night Manchester, Connecticut Shooting.: Several Dead; Omar Thornton Identified As Shooter, at the LA Times, was at the top of a Google news search for Thornton. The fact that Thornton was black was mentioned three or four paragraphs in. On page 4 the significance of the Hollander family was mentioned. Unfortunately I did not excerpt the story, and cannot find any archive of it.
Today that LAT link redirects to a two page report, Manchester Shooting: 9 Dead; Omar Thornton Identified As Shooter at Courant.com, which omits both facts.
Searching again today it is possible to find other stories that make Thornton’s race and race-based motivation clear, eg. Omar Thornton: “I Killed the Five Racists” – Crimesider – CBS News.
However, most mainstream stories have, as of now, reduced the jewish angle to orthodox jew Louis Felder being amongst those killed.
The Hollander reference remains at Jewish father of 3 killed in Conn. rampage | JTA – Jewish & Israel News:
Steve Hollander, the company’s head of marketing, and a member of the Hollander family that founded and owns the company, was reported to have been shot, according to the Hartford Courant.
“The Hollander family is probably one of the most venerated families in the Hartford area in the Jewish community,” U.S. Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) told the Courant. “There isn’t a charity that they haven’t contributed to.”
The LAT and Courant may have memory-holed this aspect of the story, but the New York Times hasn’t: Behind Hartford Distributors, a Charitable Family.
When Whites commit crimes, nobody in the media makes excuses. If there’s a racial angle it is magnified, not suppressed. Such incidents produce immediate calls to pathologize and silence “conservatives”/”teabaggers”/”haters”, however tenuously linked to the incident. The insinuation, if not outright accusation, is that any expression of collective interests by Whites is immoral, unethical, and evil. Even when Whites don’t explicitly identify or organize by race we are cynically accused of deviously hiding our true motives.
Of course the broad-based anti-White “anti-racism” pumped out by the media 24/7 can be measured by the same yardstick. The media uniformly treats “people of color” as having legitimate grievances both as a whole as as various independent non-White “communities”. They serve up numerous narratives concerning suffering and perennial victimhood at the hands of Whites, encourage activism on this basis, and generally defend those who do act. Taken as a whole it constitutes a deliberate incitement to violence against Whites. And that’s exactly what it produces.
Sometimes this impacts jews. To the extent Thornton was acting on a hatred of Whites he’ll be painted by the media as a victim and “racism” will be blamed. On the other hand, if it is determined that Thornton was acting against jews he’ll be demonized and the most politically incorrect form of “racism”, “anti-semitism”, will be blamed. Either way, “anti-racism” is both excused and validated at the same time.
See also Christoper Donovan: Hate-Fueled Black Mass Murderer in Connecticut Spun as ‘Disgruntled Man’ by Media at The Occidental Observer Blog, and Racism Charges Not Without Consequences at Mangan’s.