« Waterloo | Main | America »

How They Got There


February 23, 2009 | Permalink


Too true, man, too true...

Posted by: ZanderSchubert | Feb 24, 2009 12:22:36 AM

"We left them there." Perhaps we leave them there because, as a group, they commit crime, especially violent crime, at much higher rates than other groups. Perhaps we leave them there because black criminals specifically target white victims. Perhaps we leave them there because rather than put ourselves and our families at risk, we move to someplace safer--i.e., someplace with fewer (or no) blacks.

Remember, I'm just following the advice of our new attorney general, who launched an all-out attack on whites in a speech about the non-event known as Black History Month. (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012547.html) Well, if he wants us to have "candid" discussions on race, let 'er rip!

Posted by: Sparticus | Feb 24, 2009 10:57:51 PM


> Perhaps we leave them there because black criminals specifically target white victims.

Actually, they target themselves even more than whites. I'm not going to argue if that's an opportunity funtion.

> if he wants us to have "candid" discussions on race
Much, much too candid. Candidness only goes one way, like all the rest of "racism", you know.


Posted by: Obloodyhell | Feb 25, 2009 4:29:22 AM

Regarding African Americans left" in inner cities - really? "We" "left them" there? I like your cartoons, but you have that one precisely wrong. Americans are free to move where they choose. Despite the crap emanating from Washington DC for the past 45 days, most of us could care less what color, race or ethnicity our neighbors are. What we do care about is whether those neighbors are able to be good neighbors. "We" did not "leave" anyone anywhere. People need to get out and make something of their life, and not ask me for excessive handouts to do so - that's about all I care about. Oh - and pay their fair share of our taxes!

And about the Americans living on reservations...it's a free country - if they don't like their current location, they, too are free to move somewhere else!


Posted by: loki | Feb 25, 2009 8:46:11 AM

Spartacus, what you have there is a self-fulfilling prophesy. If people can't get out of the inner-city slums, they will react negatively, especially against the people who they feel put them there. If we keep them there *because* "they" act against "us", then it becomes a vicious cycle.

By the way, do you know the reason why people don't just move out of the inner cities or reservations? They can't afford it. America may be a free country, but you can't get anything for free.

Of course, I don't admit to understanding how we can solve the problems of these poor people, but leaving them there certainly isn't helping.

Posted by: ZanderSchubert | Feb 25, 2009 6:45:26 PM


That is not correct. According to National Crime Victimization Survey statistics, although blacks are only about 12% of the US population, they commit 85% of the interracial crime. Do a web search for "The Color of Crime," produced by the New Century Foundation. Its extensive footnotes and plain language illustrate the facts that most of us refuse to acknowledge: as a group, blacks are more prone to crime than any other group. (However, I will note that since 2000, even while the overall US murder rate has gone down, the murder rate among black teens has increased, so you're partially right.)

What's more, you are completely correct with your assessment of what our new Attorney General, the race-baiting Eric Holder, meant.

Zander: what you have produced is standard liberal pabulum designed to divert our attention away from reality and towards, ultimately, blaming another source for the shortcomings of a minority. Crime does not "happen"; it is committed by people. It doesn't matter where those people are, because criminals commit crime regardless of their location. Detroit, MI and Gary, IN used to be nearly all-white and relatively law-abiding; as they made the transition to black majority, their crime rates skyrocketed. People in a San Francisco suburb are finding out to their dismay that allowing Section 8 recipients into their neighborhoods causes an increase in crime (http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/012185.html). Location does not cause crime; people commit crime.

"I don't admit to understanding how we can solve the problems of these poor people"

That's a good start. The next step is realizing that their problems are THEIR responsibility, not OURS. We can start espousing higher standards and demanding that everyone live up to them, but we are unable to fix problems whose origins are outside our control.

"leaving them there certainly isn't helping"

In the region where I live, it's mainly "Hispanics" who commit crime. I'd just as soon have them shoot each other in their neighborhood than to come to mine and start up a new shotting gallery. So--leave 'em! Except, of course, for the illegal aliens, many of whom are involved in gangs and gang-related crime: they need to be returned to their countries of origin. Why should we be the receptacle for another country's refuse?

Posted by: Sparticus | Feb 25, 2009 8:03:23 PM

Well, yeah: I was trying to say that it's not because they're a member of a minority that they are committing crimes, it's the environment. I would have blabbed about how hard it would be to get out of "the ghetto", but I thought it would just sound pretentious. The thing you've reminded me of, however, is that these "ghettos" must have started somehow: I just assumed that, because the minority populations would have been shunted off to the worst parts of the city, the blacks would start off in the slums and never been able to leave, and the problems started from there, but if what you're saying about Detroit and Gary is true, I might need to reconsider it.

Essentially, I wanted to say that, left to their own devices, the people living in the inner cities would get worse and worse until eventually the environment collapses, or something like that. Turns out that you agree with me; the real difference is that you think they deserve that collapse, and I don't.

Hmm... maybe this is a succinct difference between liberals and conservatives: you believe that "their" problems aren't "our" problems, and we do.

Posted by: ZanderSchubert | Feb 26, 2009 12:37:50 AM

No, I don't think that they "deserve" social failure and collapse and all the ills that befall them. I think that the actions of others are their responsibility, not mine.

Look at any black-majority area--not just Gary and Detroit, but also New Orleans, DC, black-majority Caribbean islands, and most of Africa--and you find rampant crime occurring under the watch of corrupt and inefficient governments. Rhodesia was a successful, law-abiding country that exported food. Zimbabwe, on the other hand, is a kleptocracy where the rule of law is non-existent, not to mention its collapsed economy and astronomical inflation rates. Ian Smith was more popular than Robert Mugabe ever was, and that's because he, unlike Mugabe, was a decent man leading a just government.

As long as blacks are in our society, their problems will also be ours. The difference between liberals and conservatives is in what we feel is the best approach. Liberals pursue socialist "solutions" with proven records of failure. LBJ's "Great" Society did more to harm blacks, especially the black family, than any other policy. As an example, in 1960, the black illegitimacy rate was about 25%, in contrast to whites' 3%. Now, while white illegitimacy has leapt up to somewhere between 17 and 22% (different groups report different figures), the black illegitimacy rate has skyrocketed to 70%! This means that marriage--the foundation of any society--is not only deeply damaged among whites, it is going the way of the horse and buggy among blacks.

What to do? Conservatives advocate a return to traditional values, but that will never happen as long as the majority group--whites--has abdicated its role as the standard setter for the society as a whole. This is what whites did in the 60s and thereafter, so, in an indirect way, whites are partially responsible for overall social collapse--but individuals still remain responsible for their choices and actions.

Posted by: Sparticus | Feb 27, 2009 1:38:51 AM

> Sheesh.

Loki, I think you need to sniff around here more. Tom's no bleeding heart libtard.

I'm pretty sure he agrees for the most part with what you've said. You're probably reading things into "we left them there" that aren't intended. I might be wrong, but I don't think so.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | Feb 27, 2009 3:22:39 PM

> If people can't get out of the inner-city slums,

LOL, sorry, Zander, but what "white massah" chained them there?

Frankly, when I hear about how awful it is in Compton, or "down in the 'hood", where ever the "hood" may be -- I have a really, really simple suggestion.

**** M O V E ****

Pack your shit, shove it in the trunk of your car, and MOVE. (Don't have a car? Go Greyhound!)

Drive until you're low on friggin' gas, find the nearest church, and ask them if they can help you find a job and a place to stay until you can get on your feet. Keep visiting churches until you find out where the local halfway house is.

I can say that *I* would not stay in a place where I had to worry about drive-by shootings, and if I had kids, I would consider myself a VERY POOR PARENT to continue to live in such a hell-hole.

"Oh, but how can you expect anyone to do such a thing!?!?"

Assuming you actually thought that:

You're *kidding*, right?

What IS THIS COUNTRY but a nation of people who did EXACTLY THAT:

"Man this place SUCKS. There's GOTTA be someplace better than this! I'm going looking for it! G'bye!"

I grasp that black people are often not the descendents of those people (and unique in that way, for the most part, among American sociocultural groups), but it's pretty clear that is the way to handle that situation.

Get the F*** out and find somewhere better.

Yeah, you're betting that you can find someplace better than Compton.

Is this REALLY a bad bet?

I don't think so.

America, more than any other nation, allows this kind of mobility. We're larger than most other nations which have the same kind of freedom, and we've got very few strictures on where one has to live.

Yeah, I grasp -- you have to give up friends and family, and probably that easy handout from the gummint.

But you know? It's how you get a BETTER life. You stop sitting on your ass whining about how life sucks so bad, and go out and GET SOMETHING BETTER for yourself.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | Feb 27, 2009 3:37:34 PM

> That is not correct.

I think if it's treated more as a percentage of victims chosen the stats aren't as skewed as those, though. Since they represent a smaller portion of the population, their choices of victims are actually more significant in terms of black-on-black crime. Black-on-white is probably more a function of "it's where the money is".

Your numbers aren't a surprise to me. I've known for over 20 years that, if you exclude crimes involving black people (or even ones initiated by black people), that the US crime rates are actually just about the same as the better areas of Europe, despite our "gun culture". Just another example of how libtards love to use statistics to lie.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | Feb 27, 2009 3:43:12 PM

> I was trying to say that it's not because they're a member of a minority that they are committing crimes, it's the environment.

Sorry, Zander, that's not actually true. When you compare similar socio-economic status, educational levels, all of it, blacks are still much more likely to commit crimes, and to be victims of crimes by other blacks.

And no, I'm not claiming it's because of their being blacks, or because of genetics, or anything like that (I won't accept eliminating that, but I'm certainly not presuming it at this point).

What I believe is that a large part of it is black culture, which currently discourages a lot of successful behaviors because they're "white". In their efforts to create an identity which is independent of their slave history, they've unfortunately embraced a lot of socially negative role models, attitudes, and behaviors which have had an exceedingly deleterious affect on their lives and wellbeing. As long as we ignore these factors, particularly for "PC" or "white guilt" reasons, to ignore their continued embracement of these flawed ideas, and, more critically, fail to lay the blame of the responsibility for these problems at their own feet, the problems will remain.

No program which does not involve recognizing the fact that blacks are largely responsible for their current conditions will work, because it's nothing other than complete denial on their part to say otherwise.

As horrible as it was in the days of Jim Crow, black literacy was over 50%. What is it now? (Hint: one hell of a lot lower).

And, in an increasingly technical culture, WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF WIDESPREAD ILLITERACY GOING TO BE?

Duh -- poor jobs, poor income, and poor resources.

"Whitey" isn't responsible for illiteracy. That's the parents, and the parents alone. Teachers can help, but they can't do anything when the culture itself is telling kids that "they don't need to be good at things like that", so the kids don't give a rat's ass about learning or reading.

This problem needs to be tackled. And I guarantee you there are a lot of white people who would happily help. But the answer isn't "mo money, mo money, mo money!". Until there's a sea change in the attitudes prevalent in the black communities, it's not going to fix itself. It's just not.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | Feb 27, 2009 3:56:19 PM

> you believe that "their" problems aren't "our" problems, and we do.

No, Zander, you really don't see it.

It's not a matter of "our problems" or "their problems".

It's a matter of "I can't solve YOUR problems."

I can help, but for most problems, particularly (for reasons espoused earlier) the current problems facing the black community, the problems stem from internal attitudes and issues. Until black people grasp that, it's not going to change.

You can offer an alcoholic all the help you want. Until they grasp that they have a problem, your help isn't going to do jack shit for solving the problem.

As a group, blacks have several problems which are internal:
1) "They're victims here. You owe them". No. I haven't done jack shit to oppress black people. What my great-great-grand-daddy supposedly did to their GGGD is history (what if my GGGD was in Italy? Do I still "owe" black people jack shit?). Further, to follow that path is to lead to the kind of crap that creates Hatfield-vs-McCoy society. "Your GGGD stole from my GGGD! Die, you bastard!"

2) "White cultural ideas aren't for me!" If you want to be successful, yeah, THEY ARE. That doesn't mean you have to be an "oreo", but you do have to figure out that the reason why white people are successful is because they have a system that WORKS. So adopting a system that works is a GOOD idea. That's how society advances, and why American society is so remarkably damned successful. We don't worry, unlike "The French" about the "purity" of our culture. We see an idea that seems to work, we don't CARE where it came from. We adopt it as our own, tweak it a bit, and put it to work. We are a mongrel culture, and that gives us hybrid vigor. American culture ain't "white" culture -- it's HUMAN culture. Look at it. We have elements from every nation, every creed, every religion. Chinese, Japanese, Greek, Italian, German, Russian, African, Hispanic, you name it, we use it.

Rejection of "white" culture is flat out stupid because IT'S REJECTION OF WHAT WORKS.

For most of the last decade, five percent of the world's population produced more than THIRTY percent of its wealth. That's six to friggin' one.

American culture WORKS. Embrace it or stop friggin' whining about how poor you f***ing are.

Also, BTW:
> By the way, do you know the reason why people don't just move out of the inner cities or reservations? They can't afford it.

"Can't afford it"? All it takes is a friggin' $30 bus ticket. If you can pay rent, you can friggin' move. Hell, if you can't pay the rent, it's time to friggin' move.

I could tackle your ghetto argument, too, but I've already made enough points. It's got a big glaring hole in it, though I'm not going to detail it right this moment.
Hint: Everyone had a "ghetto". *Spanish* Harlem. "Little Italy". Chinatown. etc., etc.

Posted by: Obloodyhell | Feb 27, 2009 4:17:22 PM


Yes and no on the source of American culture. Yes, it's successful, and yes, we are open to new ideas and innovation. However, until the wave of multiculturalism swept over us, like the effluent from an overflowing toilet, everyone knew where our culture came from: England. The colonies were settled and peopled by English colonists, with a smattering of others from the British Isles. The dominant legal, social, and religious systems were all English, hence the term WASP. Yes, here in America, the culture and ideals took on their own unique flavor, but our the culture and ideals sprang from an English source. When immigrants came, they assimilated to our English-born American culture; beyond adding food and perhaps a smattering of vocabulary, they changed American culture very little.

However, from the time the massive influx of non-European immigration began in 1965, we have not just failed to insist that immigrants and minorities conform to us, we have also allowed them to define what "American" means. (They were, of course, aided by the traitorous fifth column of American liberals and leftists, who hate Western culture in general and American culture in particular, precisely because we are so much more successful than the rest of the world.) This was an enormous mistake, and we will not see our American culture restored to its proper place of primacy until we, as a people, throw off the chains of liberalism and multiculturalism, until we insist that everyone follow our cultural norms, and disallow the denigration and usurpation of our birthright: the culture which has seen the greatest spread of human rights and dignity to the greatest number of its people, and the greatest opportunities for freedom and achievement, that the world has ever known.

You are also correct that if crimes committed by minorities are factored out, America is actually slightly safer than gun-free Europe. Also, while the "more whites equals more white victims" argument is valid, it can be adjusted for, both logically and mathematically. Logically, criminals are more likely to target victims in their immediate environments, and since most neighborhoods are predominantly unintegrated, the true crime of opportunity is against members of one's own race. While many blacks are victims of black crime, the reality is that blacks target whites disproportionately.

Mathematically, there is an elegant equation in Footnote 42 in “The Color of Crime” that shows that due to the relative percentages of blacks and whites, the rate of black-on-white crime should be 5.5 times the rate of black-on-black crime. In reality, while it varies by crime, blacks are 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against whites than vice-versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

Incidentally, there is a mathematically-involved yet still-accessible-to-the-layman article showing how blacks target whites here: http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/hood.htm (Ignore the equations, and just look at the graphs to follow the argument.)

In any case, the facts speak for themselves: blacks not only commit crime at a greater rate than other groups, they disproportionally target white victims.

Posted by: Sparticus | Feb 28, 2009 12:17:03 AM

The comments above could produce a lifetime of "4-BlockWorld" cartoons. Seems like folks take things a bit too seriously and a bit too simplistically.

Posted by: Bruce Oksol | May 3, 2009 7:49:35 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.