10 Things NEVER to Say to a Black Coworker

[M.Dancer]

(which was btw fueled by the incessant coverage of the eminently ordinary Rodney King story

Might be just me but if a story broke where a white motorist was beaten senseless by 12 black Cops, lictor would be first in line at the Sears White Sale and screaming "We Can't Get Along"

[lictor616]

Might be just me but if a story broke where a white motorist was beaten senseless by 12 black Cops, lictor would be first in line at the Sears White Sale and screaming "We Can't Get Along"

not if the white motorist was doing 115 mph on the 210 freeway for a 15 minute stretch (as Rodney King did) nearly killing 3 pedestrians (as Rodney King did), refusing to get into a prone position while on PCP and other substances and with a wrap sheet including drug trafficking, assault charges, weapons charges, assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree robbery, and intent to commit great bodily injury, beating his sleeping wife (all as king did) etc etc etc etc...

I would never dare to defend a white person guilty of obvious crimes and especially low grade behavior.

Blacks on the other hand seem so quick to defend murderers and criminals (when they are black)

just as surely as they did with OJ, Micheal Vick, the Jena 6 (they actually rallied for the Jena 6:

)

just as they rioted like a pack of raging animals in los angeles...

do you think white people would riot if some white guy was assaulted by officers? especially when you look at the evidence and notice that the officers had every right to do what they did?

of course dancer, you won't answer honestly, and will probably just deflect, insult or play the discounting game...

Edited November 10, 2009 by lictor616

[lictor616]

"90% of violent interracial crime in the US is black vs white"

Which can also be stated as 90% of interracial crime in the US is white vs black.

Which accounts for some 12% of homicides overall; that is nothing compared to the 44.6% white on white or 42.2% black on black homicide (2005) as listed in your link. Almost 87% of homicides were intra-racial. What is your point again?

So you didn't answer my question, nor attempt to build any sort of rational base for citing a "double standard," nor did you expand on the LA Riots in a coherent way. You lose 3 points.

Here is an interesting story from the Ottawa Sun:

http://www.ottawasun.com/news/ottawa/2009/11/09/11687281.html

look at able 42 -Distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender and table 48: Distribution of multiple-offender victimizations, by type of crime, race of victims and perceived race of offender.

black on white: 1 916 380

White on black: 362 784

that's right blacks (who represent 12 to 13% of the population of the US) commits 1.9 MILLION violent offenses against white people and whites (who are perhaps 72%) commit less then 400 000... and you don<t see a discrepancy with these rates?

Ratios of violent black on White crimes

Crimes of violence 31.07

Completed violence 38.12

Attempted/threatened violence 27.39

Rape/Sexual assault >17,353***

Robbery 119.64

Robbery - Completed/property taken >30,834***

Robbery - With injury >12,803***

Robbery - Without injury >17,997***

Robbery - Attempted to take property 42.37

Robbery - Attempted to take property - With injury 16.09

Robbery - Attempted to take property - Without injury >10,595***

Assault 24.28

Assault - Aggravated 10.79

Assault - Simple 33.19

*** indicates less than 10 cases per year of White on black crime

*** estimate of 10 cases was used for the purposes of calculation

Data Sources

US Census Bureau - 2006 Population Estimates

[Michael Hardner]

When I click on it it's green, like you said, but I can't figure out how to get more than the quote from the post that I'm responding to in my response.

Lictor, my wiki says that African Americans make up 16% of the population, and more in urban areas (19% in Chicago) therefore they should make up 16% of the victims for any given crime.

362 784 / 1 916 380 is about 18.9% which seems about right.

Let me know if you find an error with my math.

[M.Dancer]

of course dancer, you won't answer honestly,

Only If I;m pretending to be you...you know, like making this kind of false statement

just as they rioted like a pack of raging animals in los angeles...

do you think white people would riot if some white guy was assaulted by officers?

Of course you are probably too young to remember and your newsources too dishonest to tell the truth. The riots weren't about the beating as you well know (or don't).

and will probably just deflect,

You mean like this?

not if the white motorist was doing 115 mph on the 210 freeway for a 15 minute stretch (as Rodney King did) nearly killing 3 pedestrians (as Rodney King did), refusing to get into a prone position while on PCP and other substances and with a wrap sheet including drug trafficking, assault charges, weapons charges, assault with a deadly weapon, second-degree robbery, and intent to commit great bodily injury, beating his sleeping wife (all as king did) etc etc etc etc...

I would never dare to defend a white person guilty of obvious crimes and especially low grade behavior.

Of course you would. Lets pretend that all those things are true and that the police knew all thise things whne they almost killed King....if he were white and the cops were all black you would be on it like white on rice...hypocrite.

insult or play the discounting game...

Your worthless non plagiaring posts are 75% as good as your plagiarized ones.

Happy now?

[Shwa]

"and will probably just deflect, insult or play the discounting game..."

Or maybe he will recall the white truck driver - Reg Denny - that was dragged out of his truck and beaten by a group of black men. All of it was filmed. All of it was a news story of "monstrous proportions."

"a discrepancy with these rates?"

So lets do some math...

Black on White violent crime: 1,916,380

White on Black Crime: 362,784

That roughly works out to be a 5 to 1 ratio.

Population: 74% White - 14% Black

That roughly works out to be a 5 to 1 ratio.

Hmmmm... now isn't that interesting...

[kimmy]

How about "Media Failure" ?

It's important to keep in mind that the media generally is not charged with keeping the level of accuracy that, say, an academic paper would be expected to have. Moreover, when we're speaking of hot button issues, and determining what to report on - there's absolutely no expectation of fairness, except in the naive.

When you also take into account that the media is about getting attention, then you have a recipe for information failure pure and simple. This particular bias may be related to the media' interest in shocking people, for example.

Media failure, though, is understandable and even excusable when you look at the framework that we have developed for disbursing information through society.

I offer one big fat explanation for the discrepancy in coverage given the two incidents for your consideration, Michael.

Media were uneasy about covering the Buffalo incident because they were concerned about being branded racist.

Media were enthusiastic about covering the Courtenay incident because they wanted to be thought of as enlightened.

Mull that over, and get back to me.

"double standard" + "be a news story of monster proportions"

And why is that exactly? Is it a case of dog bites man versus man bites dog as the test of news worthiness? Or is it something to do with proportions of population and the recent history of black folk in America? If I recall correctly, the LA Riots of 1992 was a story of "monster proportions." Do you remember those riots and the monster proportional news that preceeded them?

You say there is a double standard, but don't bother with the reasons - if such a standard actually exists - why that is. Surely you are not accepting things at face value?

I certainly say there's a double standard in regard to how such stories are covered by the media. In this thread I've mentioned the absurd disparity in the coverage received by the Heinous Courtenay BC Hate Crime compared to the total non-coverage given to the Buffalo NY incident. In previous threads I've mentioned other incidents as well. I compared the coverage given to the Duke lacrosse "rape" case-- hyping it up as privileged white frat-boys feeling entitled to victimize a poor black exotic dancer-- vs the Toronto highschool rape case, where we know that the attackers were black because the black parents cried that the charges were racially motivated, and yet when the convictions rolled in, the racial aspect of the case was deliberately left out of the coverage, even the prior allegations of racism were not mentioned in the coverage. (the other notable difference between the two cases, of course, is that the Toronto rape case resulted in across the board guilty-pleas and convictions, while the Duke "rape" case was proven to be a false accusation.)

If you wish to dispute the idea that there's a double standard in how white-on-nonwhite vs nonwhite-on-white incidents are covered by the media, I'll be more than happy to engage that topic. Have at it, if you wish.

Now... while it is generally not considered exactly kosher to mention personal anecdotes in this sort of conversation, I will mention the following by way of shedding some light on why I think the coverage given to the Heinous Courtenay BC Hate Crime is a complete joke: I experienced a similar incident a few years ago.

I have waitressed at bars since I was 18. One night in 2006, I had left the establishment where I worked, and was walking along Whyte Ave in Edmonton to the bus stop. I was confronted by a group of young adult aboriginals. I was verbally abused, shoved, taunted, threatened, and challenged to fights by the female members of the group. And they made it clear that it was my appearance and my ancestry that they had issue with. I escaped by bolting; they pursued until I ducked into an establishment where I knew the bouncer.

All of this is identical to the Jay Phillips Heinous Hate Crime situation, except that there was nobody with a video camera handy. If somebody with a video camera had been handy, I have to wonder how things might have turned out differently.

Would I be invited to schools to talk about the incident?

Would I be encouraged to run for city council?

Would the incident have become an international news story? Or a youtube sensation?

The answer to all of those questions is "fat f****ing chance."

-k

[Shwa]

"If you wish to dispute the idea that there's a double standard in how white-on-nonwhite vs nonwhite-on-white incidents are covered by the media, I'll be more than happy to engage that topic. Have at it, if you wish."

::And why is that exactly? Is it a case of dog bites man versus man bites dog as the test of news worthiness? Or is it something to do with proportions of population and the recent history of black folk in America?::

Hmmmm.... are you going to attempt to answer my questions or are you going to dodge a little longer?

In the meantime, here is an interesting little story: http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/crime/article/139672 Notice the detailed description of the perpetrators. But, I digress...

Edited November 11, 2009 by Shwa

[kimmy]

"If you wish to dispute the idea that there's a double standard in how white-on-nonwhite vs nonwhite-on-white incidents are covered by the media, I'll be more than happy to engage that topic. Have at it, if you wish."

::And why is that exactly? Is it a case of dog bites man versus man bites dog as the test of news worthiness? Or is it something to do with proportions of population and the recent history of black folk in America?::

Hmmmm.... are you going to attempt to answer my questions or are you going to dodge a little longer?

What am I alleged to be dodging here? In the prior thread ("Hate Crime in Courtenay BC!") I called it a "man bites dog" story." But I actually don't think that really explains it.

As I mentioned in my response to Michael, I think the media sees benefit in reporting white-on-nonwhite violence, but sees risk in reportin nonwhite-on-white violence.

You mention "proportions of population" and "recent history of black folk in America"... how do either of those factors determine the one story as being highly newsworthy and the other as meriting no coverage at all?

Is it your position that the media's job is to decide what merits coverage based on its potential to effect social change?

My position is that the news media's job is to report the f***ing news.

Further, I believe that the news media has the potential to *harm* progressive causes by under-reporting nonwhite-on-white violence and over-reporting white-on-nonwhite violence.

Specifically, it becomes very easy for me to ridicule all of the coverage given the Courtenay situation when I know that the same media completely ignored a far more brutal incident in Buffalo. Why should I be concerned about such an incident when I *know* such coverage has been completely slanted to hype white-on-nonwhite violence far out of proportion?

Btw, you seem like an articulate person who is willing to make an effort to present an argument. As such, I hope you feel welcome here at MLW.

In the meantime, here is an interesting little story: http://www.newsdurhamregion.com/news/crime/article/139672 Notice the detailed description of the perpetrators. But, I digress...

Well no kidding. The media offers descriptions that might help identify attackers who remain at large, as a matter of public safety.

Some have contended that even doing this much is racist.

-k

[M.Dancer]

Specifically, it becomes very easy for me to ridicule all of the coverage given the Courtenay situation when I know that the same media completely ignored a far more brutal incident in Buffalo. Why should I be concerned about such an incident when I *know* such coverage has been completely slanted to hype white-on-nonwhite violence far out of proportion?

-k

Two completely different media markets. Not the same media at all. I doubt that the courtenay incident, which wasn't particulary widely covered here in the east got any coverage at all in Bufaloo....maybe in Washington state...I doubt much in the US. Secondly, a swarming in Bufaloo, regardless of race ain't news. Neither are house fires in Bufaloo...

[kimmy]

Two completely different media markets. Not the same media at all. I doubt that the courtenay incident, which wasn't particulary widely covered here in the east got any coverage at all in Bufaloo....maybe in Washington state...I doubt much in the US. Secondly, a swarming in Bufaloo, regardless of race ain't news. Neither are house fires in Bufaloo...

Google for the Courtenay incident, and you can find hundreds of hits from all over the globe.

Google for the Buffalo incident, and you can find nothing save for a few reports from Buffalo.

-k

[M.Dancer]

Google for the Courtenay incident, and you can find hundreds of hits from all over the globe.

Google for the Buffalo incident, and you can find nothing save for a few reports from Buffalo.

-k

The first page has 3 media outlets, 2 are talking about the aftermath, all are western.

2nd page, a CBC item about the victim on youtube...

It was a local story that had it's 30 seconds of national exposure...

I'm not going to search all night for the international report..if you say it's there I'm sure you can find one...but it wasn't a big story in any case. Neither was buffaloo. Mind you, according to lictor, rodney kings beating wasn't a big story either....

[kimmy]

The Jay Phillips incident received ample coverage on CBC, Morris, which is a national outlet, not a western one.

-k

[kimmy]

Hey, Morris, why don't you tell me what you think might have happened if someone with a video camera had been on hand to film my encounter with the aboriginals in 2006?

Do you think I'd have been invited to schools to talk about the experience? Encouraged to run for civic office? Become a celebrity?

Let me know what you think about that, Morris. I'd be fascinated to hear how you think things might have turned out.

-k

[Michael Hardner]

Kimmy,

I offer one big fat explanation for the discrepancy in coverage given the two incidents for your consideration, Michael.

Media were uneasy about covering the Buffalo incident because they were concerned about being branded racist.

Media were enthusiastic about covering the Courtenay incident because they wanted to be thought of as enlightened.

Mull that over, and get back to me.

Maybe you're right. But you're guessing in any case, and what if you're right ? Does it matter ?

[M.Dancer]

The Jay Phillips incident received ample coverage on CBC, Morris, which is a national outlet, not a western one.

-k

I don't know what ample means. 1 item is a one day rotation? 3 items in a one week in depth rotation?

All I can say is I never heard of it till I saw it here. I'm not saying the CBC didn't cover it, or that the CBC only covered it locally (and yes, the CBC is a national network that has local outlets which cover local news, which, may or may not get a wider broadcast.... But I am saying it wasn't a big news event in either case.

And no after the fact blogging will make it so.

[M.Dancer]

Hey, Morris, why don't you tell me what you think might have happened if someone with a video camera had been on hand to film my encounter with the aboriginals in 2006?

Do you think I'd have been invited to schools to talk about the experience? Encouraged to run for civic office? Become a celebrity?

Let me know what you think about that, Morris. I'd be fascinated to hear how you think things might have turned out.

-k

Um... maybe. I don't recall your 2006 encounter. You would probably have wanted to get a media consultant and a manager if you wanted any of the above. You're photogenic enough so anything is possible.

[JB Globe]

Once again, Lictor demonstrates why people don't take him seriously:

He intentionally misrepresents facts, ie - the Montreal "hate crime" in which he claimed a group of black kids beat up a white kid, unprovoked - was in actuality, as Kimmy pointed out, an incident where two groups of students hurled racial slurs at each other and escalated into an assault.

By posting the video of the attack in French (which some of us don't understand), and not providing any other info he deliberately hid the context of the attack: that this incident was one in a series of back-and-forths with racial undertones in that Montreal neighbourhood. Instead, he tried to paint "his side" (whites) as innocents, and "the other" (blacks) as villains, so that he could fit it into his "non-white people are destroying Canada/white civilization" worldview.

And when he does, upon rare occasion, find a case that doesn't need to be misrepresented (ie - Buffalo hate crime) it's blown completely out of proportion, and is used to try and demonstrate some sort of rule rather than the exception.

He also can't admit when he's made a mistake, or a bad argument, he doesn't make any attempt to refine or retract his views, he simply moves on to another line of attack, hoping to distract people from his errors with new material.

That's why he can't admit to things such as calling a black victim of a crime a "criminal" for no other reason than he is black, because admiting to that would mean he's prejudiced, which is absolutely impossible, for Lictor speaks the truth.

I'm making it a rule of thumb from now on to never respond directly to Lictor's posts except as means of dissecting his methods of misinformation - after all, as we've all seen, his factual claims cannot be trusted, and he's a dishonest debater, so there's no point in discussing anything with him in a rational sense, he'll just be evasive.

[JB Globe]

Might be just me but if a story broke where a white motorist was beaten senseless by 12 black Cops, lictor would be first in line at the Sears White Sale and screaming "We Can't Get Along"

Of course, because he's the most disingenuous poster this board has ever seen.

[Argus]

I don't know what ample means. 1 item is a one day rotation? 3 items in a one week in depth rotation?

It means that almost everyone heard about it.

[Argus]

Two completely different media markets. Not the same media at all.

There is no observable difference in the way the US media and the Canadian media would react to these incidents. Both are highly sensitive to any examples of "racist" attacks and eager to report them unless the victim in question has white skin.

[M.Dancer]

There is no observable difference in the way the US media and the Canadian media would react to these incidents. Both are highly sensitive to any examples of "racist" attacks and eager to report them unless the victim in question has white skin.

Which is alos irrelevant to the context of my post. Kimmy said the "Same" media. ABC Buffaloo is not CBC BC. It would be the same if someone was complaining that a story about a fight in Glasgow got scant coverage in Halifax.

[Shwa]

"As I mentioned in my response to Michael, I think the media sees benefit in reporting white-on-nonwhite violence, but sees risk in reportin nonwhite-on-white violence."

Dog bites man all the time. It's not news because it isn't a rare occurance. If you want all crimes reported, I think "the media" does a pretty good job even though they do not necessarily identify the skin colour of the victims. Often they will simply report the skin colour of the perpetrator as a factor of description. (the example I supplied was a joke BTW). However, in reporting the description of the perpetrator, they usually do not care if the perp is black or white ot "asian." However, I highly doubt there is any reluctance on behalf of the media if we use the Jane Creba case as an example. This is the Canadian ethic.

The US is a little different isn't it? We have a population that is in minority by a factor of 5 to 1. This minority population was highly suppressed up until fairly recently (and some would say even still, but that is beside the point). In fact, the suppression tactics is some parts of the US ranged from discrimination, segregation to plain brutish violence. Lynchings, shootings, murders and so on. Surely you are familiar with this aspect of US history...

The fact is that it would not be a rare occurance for black to commit crime against a white person because there are 5 times as many white persons to be victims. However, it is rare - and this is borne out by the statistics - that there would be white violence against black - the man bites dog scenario. And this, coupled with the history surrounding the treatment of black people by the majority white elite in recent times and the efforts of the white majority to remove racism as much as possible has led to a sensitivity that compels news folk to take a closer, and sometimes more careful, look. I mean, do men still bite dogs nowaways? What's up with that?

So you can't blame them.

"Is it your position that the media's job is to decide what merits coverage based on its potential to effect social change?"

Read 'Manufactured Consent' by Herman and Chomsky. My position is similar to theirs in that a simple view of the news industry leads to simplistic conclusions. But I will say that I believe that a primary factor in what the media decides is newsworthy has more to do with profit than social change. And, of course, it isn't all that profitable to report that a dog bit a man...

Edited November 11, 2009 by Shwa

[kimmy]

Um... maybe. I don't recall your 2006 encounter. You would probably have wanted to get a media consultant and a manager if you wanted any of the above. You're photogenic enough so anything is possible.

I guess it was a little much for me to expect someone your age to remember something I posted way back on November 10, 2009.

Which is alos irrelevant to the context of my post. Kimmy said the "Same" media. ABC Buffaloo is not CBC BC. It would be the same if someone was complaining that a story about a fight in Glasgow got scant coverage in Halifax.

Ok, instead of giving me ridiculous dodges like pondering what constitutes "ample coverage" or whether national media outlets in the US are the "same" as ones in Canada, how about answering a simple yes or no question for me:

If 10 to 15 white men had attacked an 18 year old black boy for dating a white girl in Buffalo, do you think the story would have been picked up by media outlets outside of Buffalo?

Come on, Morris, why don't you shock me by actually answering this one.

-k

[kimmy]

And when he does, upon rare occasion, find a case that doesn't need to be misrepresented (ie - Buffalo hate crime) it's blown completely out of proportion, and is used to try and demonstrate some sort of rule rather than the exception.

What makes you say it's the exception? I'm of the opinion that violence against white people by non-white people is underreported and when it's reported the racial aspect is downplayed or ignored. Several examples have been offered, not just the Buffalo incident. If you wish to dispute the point, maybe you should offer a counter-example.

-k