10 Things NEVER to Say to a Black Coworker

Michael Hardner · November 13, 2009

Lictor,

the double standard could scarcely be more dramatic.

Not only have you not found evidence, you've further proven why the media is in many ways likely to ignore the type of coverage you would like.

The murder of Mr. Byrd by white supremacists is a type of race-based killing which, as Kimmy points out, receives particular interest and IMO deserves that interest. Why ? Because people are rightfully concerned about ideologies that dehumanize races, and know the particular type of hell that that thinking leads to. See not-too-distant history.

The other killing seems to be by all accounts a murder of the type that occur every day - cruel and chilling but not based on an ideology that encourages humans to dehumanize groups of others.

Now, your example was very difficult to find but I did find it here:

Natall.com where the author Dr. William Pierce says:

And if you didn't hear about this killing from me, you didn't hear about it.

Which leads me to ask - why are you reading from Dr. Pierce ? Do you admire his writings ? Answer the question, please and thank you.

Dr. William Pierce

William Luther Pierce III (September 11, 1933 – July 23, 2002), was the leader of the white separatist National Alliance organization, and a principal ideologue of the white nationalist movement. First educated as a physicist, he later worked with George Lincoln Rockwell, the founder of the American Nazi Party.

I can only give you so much benefit of the doubt, Lictor, and in fact I may have given you too much already.

kimmy · November 13, 2009

Must be a bug. When i first posted, everything was in your quote, then I when to edit and everthing was where it should be...and I have tried twice to fix it and each time it shows your quotes in the right place with all the tags nice and neat and my comments below....

I will report my own post to Greg...hope I don't get banned.

odd.

I assume this is what you were responding to:

Now, somebody getting set on fire is probably going to get in the news (under the "lurid details" rule.) But if the attacker wasn't white and the victim wasn't non-white, the race aspect of this story is not going to be mentioned *at* *all* and you're certainly not going to have reporters pursuing a hate-crime angle.

I disagree. If the perpertrator is at large and the police release a description, white will certainly be included.

Fair enough. The race of the attacker would be mentioned by way of helping apprehend an at-large criminal.

However, while mentioning the race of the attacker is relevant in bringing him to justice, the coverage of this incident went further. They mention the race of the victim as well, and further, they speculate that it may have been a hate crime based on no other information than the race of the attacker and the victim.

On a side note, that incident is what we once called "bum lighting". I knew some folks who did this sort of thing (and this is 30 years ago) where they would set the pants of a sleeping wino on fire. Not particularly nice

Certainly not. However... was this done as sick pranks? Or was it a Hate Crime? I think we kind of need to know the ethnic background of these hobos that were set on fire.

-k

M.Dancer · November 13, 2009

Certainly not. However... was this done as sick pranks? Or was it a Hate Crime? I think we kind of need to know the ethnic background of these hobos that were set on fire.

-k

If it was a hate crime it ws the hatred of derelicts.

I ...just recalled another story. A fellow I used to know, an editor of one of the Metroland papers was for about 10 years a bum in England and Europe in the 60s (he was quite adamant about it, he was a dirty bum, not a dirty hippy)

He told me he decided to end that lifestyle after being set on fire for the 3rd time.

kimmy · November 13, 2009

Not only have you not found evidence, you've further proven why the media is in many ways likely to ignore the type of coverage you would like.

The murder of Mr. Byrd by white supremacists is a type of race-based killing which, as Kimmy points out, receives particular interest and IMO deserves that interest. Why ? Because people are rightfully concerned about ideologies that dehumanize races, and know the particular type of hell that that thinking leads to. See not-too-distant history.

The other killing seems to be by all accounts a murder of the type that occur every day - cruel and chilling but not based on an ideology that encourages humans to dehumanize groups of others.

Now, your example was very difficult to find but I did find it here:

A book by Anthony Walsh

A book by Jim Kuypers

I have no idea how legit Anthony Walsh is, but Jim Kuypers is a Virginia Tech professor of communication studies and has written books on a variety of media topics, he seems pretty credible.

It certainly was difficult to find, however, which I think illustrates the point.

-k

M.Dancer · November 13, 2009

However, while mentioning the race of the attacker is relevant in bringing him to justice, the coverage of this incident went further. They mention the race of the victim as well, and further, they speculate that it may have been a hate crime based on no other information than the race of the attacker and the victim.

-k

In that story of the bum lighting, I didn't see the race of the victim mentioned, but it was noted that they did not factor race as a motive. I assume it was removed. Rightly so I would assume because at face value it has no relevance. No had the bum lighters been chanting racists slogans...then it would have been relevant.

Local CBC reporting tends to be done by the inexperienced journalist just out of J school and is often shoddy.

kimmy · November 13, 2009

If it was a hate crime it ws the hatred of derelicts.

I ...just recalled another story. A fellow I used to know, an editor of one of the Metroland papers was for about 10 years a bum in England and Europe in the 60s (he was quite adamant about it, he was a dirty bum, not a dirty hippy)

He told me he decided to end that lifestyle after being set on fire for the 3rd time.

You're telling me that setting fire to hobos was apparently a fairly common occurrence. You can see why this additional information makes me more cynical regarding the media types who jumped on "hate crime" as a motive in the Vancouver incident, right?

-k

Michael Hardner · November 13, 2009

Lictor,

Just so I know where you stand, can you be clear on this ?

Would you say you're a reader of Dr. William Pierce ? An avid reader ? A devotee ? A follower ? A disciple ? It will help me immensely to understand your arguments if I have a reference point as to where they come from.

For example, if you believe as he apparently did in the superiority of one race in particular, then I don't have to waste time talking about statistics, and methodologies with you - and we can focus on values and nothing more.

M.Dancer · November 13, 2009

You're telling me that setting fire to hobos was apparently a fairly common occurrence. You can see why this additional information makes me more cynical regarding the media types who jumped on "hate crime" as a motive in the Vancouver incident, right?

-k

Oh I agree with you here %100 percent.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/oct/11/local/me-homeless11

http://cbs2.com/local/homeless.man.fire.2.838696.html

Not going to say if its fairly common...

But google homeless sat on fire

kimmy · November 13, 2009

In that story of the bum lighting, I didn't see the race of the victim mentioned, but it was noted that they did not factor race as a motive. I assume it was removed. Rightly so I would assume because at face value it has no relevance. No had the bum lighters been chanting racists slogans...then it would have been relevant.

Local CBC reporting tends to be done by the inexperienced journalist just out of J school and is often shoddy.

It was actually the Global TV report that I watched which contained the speculation that it was a hate crime.

I don't have a video to prove it, but I provided the CBC article because it contained this information:

Contrary to media reports, police said in a written statement "there is no information to suggest the motive for the assault had any hate bias related to it or that it was motivated by ethnicity, gender or any other factor."

Which is valuable for 2 reasons. First off it supports my claim that other media reports had speculated on the hate crime aspect of it. Secondly, it points out that the police have nothing to suggest there was a hate motive.

So the very next day....

Vancouver Police Probe Possible Racial Motive After Man Set On Fire

Vancouver police say they’re investigating whether racism prompted three white men to set a Filipino man on fire late Saturday night.
The 26-year-old man from the nearby suburb of New Westminster had been out drinking when he saw a couch on a east Vancouver sidewalk and decided to lay down to sleep.

Around 11:40 p.m., a witness saw three black-clad, tattooed and pierced men standing over the man, spraying fluid on him and torching him.

Several witnesses chased the men off after a brief altercation, police said.

“Lighting someone on fire with fluid and a match is a pretty heinous thing to do,” said Const. Lindsey Houghton. “As far as a hate crime, it’s possible.”

Clearly Constable Houghton is responding to a question from the media in offering "it's possible" that it was a hate crime. That's a far cry from what the headline reports, or from the claim that "police say they’re investigating whether racism prompted" the attack.

I think it's pretty clear what's going on here.

-k

M.Dancer · November 13, 2009

I don't have a video to prove it, but I provided the CBC article because it contained this information: -k

You have a lot of credibility with me. If you said you saw it, I believe you.

(of course I reserve the right to challenge any assumptions you might make regarding whatever you have seen...)

kimmy · November 13, 2009

You have a lot of credibility with me. If you said you saw it, I believe you.

(of course I reserve the right to challenge any assumptions you might make regarding whatever you have seen...)

Thanks I thought it was a worthwhile thing to point out anyway.

-k

Argus · November 13, 2009

You are right, I don't agree. Mainly because this opinion is unsupported by any facts or anything other than an assumption.

Reality playing no part in the above subjective and very politically correct opinion, of course.

Argus · November 13, 2009

Argus,

I don't think it would. I think that type of crime wouldn't elicit the type of righteous indignation that the editors want the viewers to feel.

There is a reason why newspaper editors will go miles out of their way to put the word "Teenage" to gether with the word "sex" in headlines. For some odd reason this generates enormous interest. There is also a reason why there is masses of porn out there featuring large black men copulating with pretty blonde girls. Both of these reasons acting together guarantee that any story featuring black assailants on white female victims would be a guaranteed read in any newspaper in north america. That the news media does not lavishly focus attention on such things is due to their shrinking away from accusations of encouraging racism.

Of course, this does not accomplish the desired result. It simply makes the point of how the news media sees itself not as the presenter of information and news but the shaper of opinion, beliefs and the people's understanding of the world, and that they have no moral qualms about altering the presentation of news in order to accomplish their self-appointed task of getting people to believe the same things they themselves believe.

Argus · November 13, 2009

Local TV and radio news carries a good load of crimes and the coverage seems to follow your rules for inclusion but it should be pointed out that the level of coverage changes as well. A downtown Toronto accidental shooting in the tourist area at Christmas shopping time is still mentioned today, whereas a murder that occurred across the street from where I lived around then received scant coverage.

NVNNHI was polie shorthand in Los Angeles which evidenced the kind of (no pun intended) black humour police often exhibit. Nevertheless, as racist as it might seem on the surface, it is a code that the media also seem to live by. The death of a pretty, innocent girl is important news. The death of a prostitute or gang member is not.

Argus · November 13, 2009

I don't know that. Discussion of race is necessarily a delicate matter, and best handled by people with tact is all. This is why you're not reading the news, and Peter Mansbridge is.

It isn't just race, though. Throughout the massive news coverage of the AIDS epidemic at its worse for years there was rarely any mention in any media I ever read to indicate that the rate of infection outside gays and intravenous drug users was miniscule.

Argus · November 13, 2009

They are much bolder than some Canadians, and certainly bolder than Canadian media or government reports. We've already had this discussion.....Canada never had a civil rights initiation by fire, or the corresponding "All in the Family".

All in the Family was not an original American show brought about due to racial strife. It was lifted wholesale from the British Till Death Do Us Part. Furthermore I doubt any network would dare touch such a show today.

Incidentally, Three's Company was also not original. Even the scripts were taken from the Brit version (Man About the House).

Michael Hardner · November 13, 2009

Argus

That the news media does not lavishly focus attention on such things is due to their shrinking away from accusations of encouraging racism.
Of course, this does not accomplish the desired result. It simply makes the point of how the news media sees itself not as the presenter of information and news but the shaper of opinion, beliefs and the people's understanding of the world, and that they have no moral qualms about altering the presentation of news in order to accomplish their self-appointed task of getting people to believe the same things they themselves believe.

On the first point - it's quite possible, but not proven.

I agree with the second point, except for the part about 'they themselves believe'part. Most of the organizations achieve as much objectivity as can be reasonably expected, IMO, but they're still story tellers.

Argus · November 13, 2009

The murder of Mr. Byrd by white supremacists is a type of race-based killing which, as Kimmy points out, receives particular interest and IMO deserves that interest. Why ? Because people are rightfully concerned about ideologies that dehumanize races, and know the particular type of hell that that thinking leads to. See not-too-distant history.

I don't think that's really true.

The other killing seems to be by all accounts a murder of the type that occur every day - cruel and chilling but not based on an ideology that encourages humans to dehumanize groups of others.

What people are concered about is that they or someone they care for might become victims of violent, brutal, vicious crimes like these. To suggest they are more concerned with a hateful, vicious murderer because he killed someone due to their race, as opposed to another hateful, vicious murderer who killed a person just because he was a hateful, vicious murderer is sophistry.

I am unconcerned about what motiviates hateful, vicious, violent vermin. I do not believe I would feel the slightest bit better or worse if I was viciously beaten by some guy because he didn't like my shirt, as opposed to some guy who didn't like my race or religion or ethnic background or language.

However, I do feel that reporters, liberal reporters, like to overcover things which involve offenses against minorities because overcovering them is a form of condemning them, and every righteous little liberal wants to do everything he can do point out the indignation we should all be feeling when a minority is the victim of a racial based attack.

They do not, of course, have the same desire to overplay it when a white person is the victim of a violent offense by a minority. Quite the contrary. There they feel that giving it too much coverage might inspire rsentment or suspicion of that racial or ethnic group. We're all children, compared to the learned professionals of the press, and can't be trusted with straight news because we aren't as emotionally and politically sensitive and mature.

M.Dancer · November 13, 2009

Reality playing no part in the above subjective and very politically correct opinion, of course.

Feel free to prove the contention.

M.Dancer · November 13, 2009

..... IMO, but they're still story tellers.

I don't think any journalist worth their salt think of themselves any differently. I'm sure when the are newly minted out of J school some might see themselves of champions of the voiceless....but pretty soon the editors beat that nonsense out of them by asking them "who the fock cares about this boring shit?" ...and then an epiphany happens that no story, no matter how noble or how worthy is worth a rats ass if it isn't compelling or make the reader feel empathy and relate to.

M.Dancer · November 13, 2009

However, I do feel that reporters, liberal reporters, like to overcover things which involve offenses against minorities because overcovering them is a form of condemning them, and every righteous little liberal wants to do everything he can do point out the indignation we should all be feeling when a minority is the victim of a racial based attack.

Most reporters don't pick and choose what they cover. That is decided in a much higher snack bracket for much less prosaic reasons.

bush_cheney2004 · November 13, 2009

All in the Family was not an original American show brought about due to racial strife. It was lifted wholesale from the British Till Death Do Us Part. Furthermore I doubt any network would dare touch such a show today.

Incidentally, Three's Company was also not original. Even the scripts were taken from the Brit version (Man About the House).

...and Canada had neither....the point that you obviously missed, as usual.

bush_cheney2004 · November 13, 2009

Then again, we didn't have slavery on that scale so we didn't need to. But your point is taken, and indeed that to me is a revelation of the more British nature of Canadian society. Polite quietude is the norm.

Be that as it may, "British quietude" does not diminish or change the social conditions in Canada any more than an ostrich can hide from reality in the sand. So many threads on this forum advertise a general uneasiness with "visible minorities" in general, and "blacks" in particular, strangely "justified" vicarioulsy with statistics from another country. Reprise: Canada is great for Africans, but not (uppity) "Blacks".

lictor616 · November 13, 2009

Lictor,

Not only have you not found evidence, you've further proven why the media is in many ways likely to ignore the type of coverage you would like.

The murder of Mr. Byrd by white supremacists is a type of race-based killing which, as Kimmy points out, receives particular interest and IMO deserves that interest. Why ? Because people are rightfully concerned about ideologies that dehumanize races, and know the particular type of hell that that thinking leads to. See not-too-distant history.

The other killing seems to be by all accounts a murder of the type that occur every day - cruel and chilling but not based on an ideology that encourages humans to dehumanize groups of others.

Now, your example was very difficult to find but I did find it here:

Natall.com where the author Dr. William Pierce says:

Which leads me to ask - why are you reading from Dr. Pierce ? Do you admire his writings ? Answer the question, please and thank you.

Dr. William Pierce

I can only give you so much benefit of the doubt, Lictor, and in fact I may have given you too much already.

omg! diabolical! you find the one other source that talks about the subject (ignored by the mass media) to try to get me on the run and associate me with what the ADL calls "neo-nazis"...

I actually got my heads up from a book on press bias: http://books.google.ca/books?id=GHIQimmDvbcC&pg=PA223&lpg=PA223&dq=Patricia+Stansfield+murder&source=bl&ots=VINtweAX3C&sig=-l_iqwDyuvlp7WmLbjY26WyqbL0&hl=en&ei=K6T9SsKLMs6FnAe37eGUCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CAsQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Patricia%20Stansfield%20murder&f=false

But now that I have read your snippet, I have to ask you, why indeed, do we need to hear it from Pierce instead of the mass media? Also did you read of the horrifying "Kayla story"? I had no idea that had happened.

but to go from there and call me a neo-nazi... I mean I suppose if you found a quote of Pierce that suggested he believed in gravity, you'd call me a neo-nazi for also believing in gravity.

Truisms are truisms no matter who says them.

Edited November 13, 2009 by lictor616

lictor616 · November 13, 2009

Most reporters don't pick and choose what they cover. That is decided in a much higher snack bracket for much less prosaic reasons.

rather, reporters get picked and chosen according to what a media outlet wants to put out.

Also, most journalism schools today breed journalists to be egalitarian left wing irreconcilables... most of the "infotainment" hacks out there, Katie Couric, Keith Olbermann, Deborah Norville, were all raised red...