The Truth of Interracial Rape in the United States

Even white rapists don't fancy black women. Interracial rape is black on white

Like Ahab's search for the Great White Whale, liberals' search for the Great White Defendant is relentless and never-ending. When, in 1988, Tawana Brawley's and Al Sharpton's then year-old spectacular charge that several white men including prosecutor Steven Pagones (whose name Brawley had picked out of a newspaper article) had abducted and raped the 15 year old was shown to be completely false, the Nation said it didn't matter, since the charges expressed the essential nature of white men's treatment of black women in this country. When the Duke University lacrosse players were accused of raping a black stripper last year, liberals everywhere treated the accusation as fact, because, just as with the Nation and Tawana Brawley, the rape charge seemed to the minds of liberals to reflect the true nature of oppressive racial and sexual relations in America.

To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005. (Go to the linked document, and under "Victims and Offenders" download the pdf file for 2005.)

In Table 42, entitled "Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender," we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005. (The number of rapes is not distinguished from those of sexual assaults; it is maddening that sexual assault, an ill-defined category that covers various types of criminal acts ranging from penetration to inappropriate touching, is conflated with the more specific crime of rape.) In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black. In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

The table does not gives statistics for Hispanic victims and offenders. But the bottom line on interracial white/black and black/white rape is clear: In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man. What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.

The Department of Justice statistics refer, of course, to verified reports. According to the Wikipedia article on rape, as many as half of all rape charges nationally are determined by police and prosecutors to be false:

Linda Fairstein, former head of the New York County District Attorney's Sex Crimes Unit, noted, "There are about 4,000 reports of rape each year in Manhattan. Of these, about half simply did not happen.... It's my job to bring justice to the man who has been falsely accused by a woman who has a grudge against him, just as it's my job to prosecute the real thing."

No wonder there was such absolute belief in the guilt of the Duke students among the leading sectors of liberal America. A drug-addled, half-deranged, promiscuous black stripper accused three young white men of raping her. There are virtually zero rapes of black women by white men in the United States, and half of all rape charges against specific individuals turn out to be false. But in the gnostic, inverted world of liberal demonology, the white students had to be guilty.

Meanwhile, in the real America, week after week, the newspapers report the rapes of white women by black men—though, of course, without ever once using the words, "a white woman was raped by black man." Just last week in the New York Post there was a story about a serial black rapist who invaded women's apartments on Manhattan's Upper West Side; you knew the rapist was black from a police drawing accompanying the story, and you knew the victims were most likely white from the neighborhoods where the attacks occurred. But even when news media's reports of black on white rape make the race of the perpetrator evident (which the media only does in a minority of instances), no explicit reference is ever made to the racial aspect of the case. Each story of black on white rape is reported in isolation, not presented as part of a larger pattern. There is never the slightest mention of the fact that white women in this country are being targeted by black rapists. In the inverted world of liberalism, the phenomenon does not exist.

Source



The self-destructiveness of black racism

Last week in The New York Sun, Manhattan Institute Senior Fellow John McWhorter offered a thought-provoking column on contemporary black urban culture. In the piece, McWhorter criticized what he terms the "stop snitching Zeitgeist," which encourages blacks not to report the criminal activity of fellow blacks to the police, as well as the casual use among black youth of the degrading epithets "nigger" and "bitch" as terms of solidarity and friendship. McWhorter is well known for his sharp critiques of black urban culture, and this piece was no exception. But McWhorter's analysis of the roots of this destructive culture, in my opinion, is incomplete.

McWhorter first argues that, "ironically, the eclipse of open racism and segregation" is "one reason black America has reached this point." How so? According to McWhorter, "these days there is more room for acting out" by blacks, because white society no longer oppresses blacks through violence and intimidation, and "all humans like acting out when they can." So, on McWhorter's reading, blacks "act out" because their natural human impulse to do so is no longer being squelched by whites. This explanation is not very persuasive, however, because it fails to address the serious problems caused by such "acting out" in the black community (e.g., crime, illegitimacy, poverty, etc.) that are not experienced to nearly the same degree in non-black communities. If "all humans like acting out when they can," as McWhoter claims, why do such discrepancies exist?

Here, McWhorter blames the Great Society, which he argues "sowed the seeds for a black identity based on being bad." The destructive effects of the welfare state on black Americans (indeed, on all Americans) are well documented. But it is not at all clear that dependency on government, unemployment, and fatherless homes, as bad as they are, necessarily lead to gangbangers, crack cocaine, misogynist rap lyrics, and the like. After all, many European countries have even more expansive welfare states than we do. But, other than in Great Britain, they do not experience the same levels of social pathology that black Americans do. Something more is needed to explain this situation.

That something more, according to McWhorter, is a post-1960s culture that "made the upturned middle finger into an icon of higher awareness." This, surely, is a large part of the problem. The anti-bourgeois agenda of the left-wing activists, who over the past four decades have conducted a "long march" through America's cultural institutions (the media, the schools, the arts, and the entertainment industry), has excused -- even ratified -- many of the harmful behaviors that are increasingly common in our society (e.g., sexual license and infidelity, divorce, illegitimacy, a preference for meaningless pleasure over lasting achievement, and a generally selfish and irresponsible attitude towards life). Again, however, this explanation does not account for the higher incidence of social pathology among black Americans.

Where McWhorter's analysis comes up short, in my opinion, is in failing to acknowledge the obstacles posed by black racial consciousness in a majority white society. Certainly he is aware of the problem. Indeed, he noted in his piece that many of the features of black urban life he criticizes are facets "of a larger phenomenon: a sense among black teens and 20-somethings that being aggressive toward the opposition is the soul of being authentic." Although he does not say so explicitly, "the opposition" to which McWhorter is referring here is white society. The idea that black youths are simply "anti-authoritarian" (to use McWhorter's description) is at best disingenuous. On the contrary, the problem McWhorter points to, but for some reason does not state openly, is that many black Americans are anti-white, and certain behaviors (e.g., refusing to report crimes to the police, who are seen as agents of white society) only make sense when explained in such grossly racial terms.

Hence, I agree with McWhorter that the civil rights reforms of the 1960s created "more room for acting out" by blacks. But the resulting "acting out" -- which has been so destructive for black individuals, families, and communities -- should be understood as being motivated, at least in part, by the animosity that some blacks feel for the institutions and norms of "white society." Unfortunately, since the 1960s, this animosity has been fostered and rationalized and institutionalized through the work of black nationalists and white multiculturalists alike. While such feelings may be understandable from a historical perspective, the social and economic consequences of such feelings have been harmful in the extreme. Consider, for example, the negative attitudes that many black students have towards academic success, which is seen as "acting white." Such attitudes inevitably lead to academic failure. Not coincidentally, black academic achievement has declined since the 1960s. This is a clear example of the self-destructive consequences of black animosity towards "white society."

Without question, being an easily recognizable minority group in a society that mistreated your people for hundreds of years is a truly difficult and unenviable position. But racial separatism is a dead end. Without a sense of fellow feeling among all members of society, without a shared allegiance to the same basic institutions, values, and standards of behavior, a successful multi-ethnic society is not possible. This is what the original civil rights movement was all about. This is the worldview that inspired Martin Luther King, Jr.'s "I Have A Dream" speech.

Sadly, a different worldview has taken hold among elites in this country, one that emphasizes the intractability of racial and ethnic differences. Perversely, by equating existing American society -- the richest and most powerful society in human history -- with white Americans (usually in a negative light), this worldview encourages black Americans to reject mainstream life, even as more and more opportunities for equal participation become available. Yet the only alternative to "white society" is the very urban culture that McWhorter rightly criticizes. As a result, "being bad" (in McWhorter's words) becomes the essence of being "black." The gangbanger or pimp is seen as more "authentically" black than the storekeeper or engineer. The true irony is that the mentality of white racists today is embraced by white and black "progressives" and their followers. A more self-defeating frame of mind is hard to imagine.

In short, what McWhorter clearly recognizes, but does not openly acknowledge in his column, is that racial consciousness itself has had harmful consequences for the black community in this country. Granted, identifying with and assimiliating into mainstream society may be difficult for black Americans, for a host of reasons. It may even seem unfair to expect them to do so. Ultimately, however, so long as the very conditions necessary for success in life -- getting an education, not having children out of wedlock, staying out of trouble with the law, and so on -- are perceived as "acting white," then the black community will continue to be plagued by the problems that McWhorter decries.

Source



THE RACISM PLOY

Are we all on the same page when it comes to "racism?" No. Sometimes it is used to imply that one race thinks they are superior to others. Another dictionary definition is discrimination against people of a certain race or races. But in today's world, it means just about anything a court, a group, an action committee, or any other faction wants it to mean in order to denigrate the other party (the one doing the offending, which by the amount of space devoted to it in media, is a full-time occupation of most European-heritage Americans who aren't even thinking about it). What is even more confusing is that when "racist" is an epithet hurled at someone because they are allegedly anti-Islamic, then "Islam" becomes a race rather than a religion. The same is true of people of Mexican origin, although Mexican is a nationality, not a religion and not a race.

If this sounds somewhat confusing, that is because it is. Special interest groups have made sure it's confusing. This isn't the first time I've said that I've never liked a race of people in my life. First, I've never met a whole race of people. Second, I've disliked as many people of the misnamed "white" race as I have of any other, and probably more because I've met more "white" people. However, that statement contains a flaw, because I've never met anyone who is "white" compared to a sheet of white paper or a can of white paint. I've met people of light skin who are of European heritage. But I've also met people who are Mexican who are lighter than some hyphenated Euro-Americans of say, Greek or Romanian ethnicity.

Now, if certain people of Mexican descent and probably nationality come and take over 40 acres of property that I own under the laws of our land, is it "racist" to dislike that act and take action against it? Let's test it not by just the issue, but by another, more modern standard: would I be just as angry if the people who came and grabbed off 40 acres of grazing land to which I own title are Finnish, is that "racist?" If you answer yes to the first and no to the second proposition, you have a big inconsistency and furthermore, a ridiculous answer. Neither you, whoever you are, nor I, are going to like a person or a group of people who come nabbing 40 acres. It just happens to be a way to defeat my objection to yell "racist" if the people belong to one group as opposed to another. It diverts attention away from the real issue, which is the nabbing of 40 acres of my land, to a supposed feeling I have against the nabbers because they have a different ethnic background and are perhaps of a different color. It shifts the crime from them (land-nabbing) to me (racism).

Isn't that a clever way to becloud the issue and shift the crime from the perpetrator to the victim? Of course. That's why it is being used in multiple nations, in numerous cases, for countless reasons, in increasing incidents, all over the Western world. Legal issues such as immigration according to the laws of the land have been made subservient to the supposed attitude of the landowners and citizens toward certain "races" of people, such races being in fact nationalities, religions or various skin colors. Justice peeks from behind that supposed blindfold.

The word "racism" is a ploy being used to effect the redistribution of peoples around the globe. Once people settle in another land in sufficient numbers to have a league of their own for defending their supposed rights above others, they have a hold on that land, its political flavors and its cultural climate. Yet any suggestion that the immigrant peoples be moved back to their homeland is defeated, met with profuse apologies for such racist conduct, and the citizens who are (take your pick) Dutch, British, Belgian, French, Spanish, Italian, or other European nationality, are fined, reprimanded or have to resign their position and take cover elsewhere.

The United States of America is importing people of other races, ethnicities and colors (other than light tan) so that the formerly European, and largely Anglo-Saxon, Irish or Germanic, heritage and homogeneous cultural background of "America" doesn't mean the same thing as it did thirty or forty years ago. There is a cultural dilution occurring, of which the open borders are a large part. And it isn't by accident.

Cultural redistribution will result in the erasure of borders so that this conglomerate of people, now all called American or some hyphenation of it (which is absurd and technically incorrect) will be a geographic region rather than a nationality with distinct laws. The laws of the land are, or will be, superseded by the higher law of the Globalist government, administered by the United Nations or some international court.

And there went the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, habeas corpus, and all the other protections that American citizens over forty years of age recall, even if somewhat vaguely.

This has been a rather cursory explanation of the ploy of "racism" to achieve cultural dilution rather than equity before a court of law or other tribunal. The fact that it exists should be obvious to anyone who is capable of observation.

What I will not do is tag this as being "right" or "wrong" for one reason, and one only: The founders of the United States warned that the price of liberty is eternal vigilance and traditional "Americans" (European heritage, light skin darked in tanning parlors) have been too lazy and taken too much for granted about their land. They have trusted politicians which is ignorance gone to seed. They've let their comfort zones dictate their attitudes about standing up for their country, so if it's lost (and it is) to the multiculturalism agenda of the Global Governance crowd, they have no one to blame but themselves. Hundreds of internet writers and bloggers have warned of what was coming years ago, and to no avail.

Notice also that Asia is not mentioned in this article, and China is (at last glance) in Asia. Yet we have millions of Asians coming into this country very, very quietly, while all the noise comes from the other corner of the house where the argument is over someone's lettuce patch or grape vines.

America as it was is preserved in the films of the 1930's through the 1970's, when the agenda began to surface. And an agenda it is, otherwise we'd still be living under American law and heritage. At least we've gotten rid of one obsolete notion, sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander.

Source

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.

***************************