Whiteprivilege.com Comment Policy
This site does not exist to publish hate speech, overtly racist language, or other harmful material. Opposing viewpoints are welcome, as long as they are expressed with a modicum of civility and without the use of overt or explicitly harmful or derogatory names or stereotypes.
Anonymous comments are discouraged: if you’re serious about a frank exchange of views and opinions, you should use your real name or, failing that, a real email address. Anonymous posts with obviously fake email addresses will be deleted immediately.
October 25th, 2002 at 1:27 am
Well, please try to understand why I remain anonymous here. While your opinions are trendy and politically correct, I am pro-white and being pro-white these days (quite unlike being pro-black or pro-Jew or pro-Arab or pro-Mexican or pro-Asian or anti-white) generally results in getting an F in a class from a liberal professor or getting fired from one’s job. Moreover, at my university (UCLA), I have attended rallies where the names, phone numbers, and addresses of people expressing only mildly conservative views have been distributed and threats of violence against them have been made. I don’t know whether these threats are realized, but needless to say I don’t care to have an angry, violent mob make me their first target in their campaign to “abolish the white race”.
So let’s talk about hate speech. I said previously that the site Race Traitor contains “hate speech”, or at least it contains material just as “hateful” as pretty much anything the ADL has on its “hate sites” list. You responded by claiming that it can’t be hate speech because Noel Ignatiev is white. Of course, this is not true. Ignatiev is not white, but is in fact Jewish. So we have a Jew saying how he’d like to “abolish the white race”. How is that not hate speech? If I, a white person, said that I wanted to “abolish the Jewish race”, and ranted on and on about “Jewish privilege” (Jews are the wealthiest ethnic group in America and are highly overrepresented in American universities), would that be hate speech, in your eyes? What if I said I wanted to abolish the black race, because of their excessive criminality (this is no stereotype, it’s a fact: blacks comprise 13% of the American population and yet they commit 50% of all violent crimes and nearly 60% of all rapes). Would that be hate speech to you?
I have another question. You probably believe that “race is a social construct”, correct? Now, I have some background in science, so I know that race is not a social construct, but rather that a race is an extended biological family, or a group of genetically related people with similar DNA. But that aside, since you want to abolish the white race, would you also like to abolish the other races as well? If not, then why is it okay to abolish the white race but not the others? And if you do want to abolish the other races, then why does your site link to pages such as ModelMinority, Black Radical Congress, and Black Electorate, all of which seek to PROMOTE racial solidarity among these groups?
Here I have remained polite and have not engaged in any stereotyping or use of racial slurs (though I did not in my previous posts, which you deleted). I’d just be interested in hearing responses to these questions, which I obviously cannot ask anyone in person as I explained earlier.
October 25th, 2002 at 10:49 am
I suspect dealing with you seriously is a waste of time, based on the nastiness of your earlier postings…
Well, please try to understand why I remain anonymous here. While your opinions are trendy and politically correct, I am pro-white and being pro-white these days (quite unlike being pro-black or pro-Jew or pro-Arab or pro-Mexican or pro-Asian or anti-white) generally results in getting an F in a class from a liberal professor or getting fired from one’s job.
So you admit that you don’t have the courage of your convictions. That’s too bad. As for my “trendy and politically correct opinions” that’s very far from being the case. I get vastly more hate mail directly related to this site than you know.
My hunch is that if you’d be honest with people around you about your extreme views, you’d likely end up modifying them under the same kind of social pressure which forces us all to grow up.
Moreover, at my university (UCLA), I have attended rallies where the names, phone numbers, and addresses of people expressing only mildly conservative views have been distributed and threats of violence against them have been made.
I’m very skeptical of this.
I don’t know whether these threats are realized, but needless to say I don’t care to have an angry, violent mob make me their first target in their campaign to “abolish the white race”.
Right, and that’s a self-reinforcing belief, brought on by your pseudo-scientific, wholly discredited view of race as a biological concept. Too bad, but it is your own fault that you’ve scared yourself into a corner in which you believe antiracists are going to kill you. It would be funny if you weren’t so hateful.
So let’s talk about hate speech. I said previously that the site Race Traitor contains “hate speech”, or at least it contains material just as “hateful” as pretty much anything the ADL has on its “hate sites” list. You responded by claiming that it can’t be hate speech because Noel Ignatiev is white.
First, if you have questions about Ignatiev’s views, why don’t you ask Ignatiev? Why are you demanding that I speak for him? I don’t know him, haven’t read very much of his work, and generally don’t speak for others.
In the interests of accuracy, I said that Ignatiev’s site isn’t full of hate speech because I don’t think a white person speaking critically about the privileges of being white is hate speech in any sense whatever. “Hate speech” isn’t just something the other persons says which you don’t like or which makes you question yourself.
Of course, this is not true. Ignatiev is not white, but is in fact Jewish.
You’re so confused.
So we have a Jew saying how he’d like to “abolish the white race”. How is that not hate speech?
Well, presumably, what he means by that matters. Since he’s neither a biological essentialist nor determinist, like you, he means by “abolish the white race” that he wants to separate being taken as white from all the social privileges which attach to being taken as white. In short, he means what he says. You can only distort that into his making some kind of genocidal claim — to which, by the way, it’s completely irrelevant whether Jews are taken to be white or not, though they are — because you’ve convinced yourself that, since there are some weak biological markers of race as a social concept, it must be a biological concept all the way down.
But that’s plainly wrong. Lots of social concepts have weak (or strong) and variant (or invariant) biological or physical markers. Red-headed and left-handedness were once thought to be a sign of the devil, of a witch — a social concept with biological markers. “Athletic ability” and “sexual attractiveness” are also social constructs with biological markers.
If I, a white person, said that I wanted to “abolish the Jewish race”, and ranted on and on about “Jewish privilege” (Jews are the wealthiest ethnic group in America and are highly overrepresented in American universities), would that be hate speech, in your eyes?
Of course, primarily, in this case, because of recent history, but also because of a long history of antisemitic persecution. Now, I must warn you that if part of your response to this is to suggest the Holocaust is a hoax, don’t waste your time posting it because I’ll delete that too.
What if I said I wanted to abolish the black race, because of their excessive criminality (this is no stereotype, it’s a fact: blacks comprise 13% of the American population and yet they commit 50% of all violent crimes and nearly 60% of all rapes). Would that be hate speech to you?
Clearly.
Your other, seemingly systematic, confusion is about explanations. I’m skeptical about your statistics; you don’t offer a source for them. But no matter. Let’s assume they’re true. You rely on this association of “black race” and criminality as if it were necessarily or even prima facie explanatory. But it isn’t in the slightest bit explanatory. Surely, given your “science background”, you understand the difference between an explanation and the logical fallacy of taking a correlation as a cause?
You’ve suggested a correlation, which I’m skeptical of, but you clearly rely on it as if it were an explanation, and you want others to hear it as an explanation. Sorry, but that dog won’t hunt here.
I have another question. You probably believe that “race is a social construct”, correct? Now, I have some background in science, so I know that race is not a social construct, but rather that a race is an extended biological family, or a group of genetically related people with similar DNA.
That’s pseudoscientific gibberish dressed up with fancy words like “genetic” and DNA.
Again, as I explained above, you’re systematically confused.
But that aside, since you want to abolish the white race, would you also like to abolish the other races as well?
More confusion on your part. I am not Noel Ignatiev. He’s an abolitionist, I am not (or at least not in the way that he is).
Further, if you want to indict Ignatiev as some kind of genocidist, you have to figure out what he means. For him, whether right or wrong, “white race” is a social construction. So when he talks about abolishing this social construct, he’s talking about creating social change, not killing people who are identified as “white”.
This “abolitionists are genocidists” line is trivially false.
If not, then why is it okay to abolish the white race but not the others? And if you do want to abolish the other races, then why does your site link to pages such as ModelMinority, Black Radical Congress, and Black Electorate, all of which seek to PROMOTE racial solidarity among these groups?
I link to these sites because I find them interesting and I think my audience will too. Is that really so complicated?
Here I have remained polite and have not engaged in any stereotyping or use of racial slurs (though I did not in my previous posts, which you deleted).
Sure you did; the logical fallacy of mistaking correlation for causality, where the two supposedly correlated terms are “blackness” and “criminality”, is one of the oldest stereotypes of all. You’re still thinking in racist, stereotypical terms, you just cleaned it up a bit so I wouldn’t delete it.
And, yes, you did use racist, hateful language in your previous posts, including “you are a piece of filth” as your pseudo email address, including talk about “African and Jewish filth releasted into our culture” and so on. That plus your posting under a fake name and email address — because, as you’ve admitted freely, you’re afraid of the consequences of your beliefs becoming public — was enough to warrant deleting your posts.
I’d just be interested in hearing responses to these questions, which I obviously cannot ask anyone in person as I explained earlier.
Not true. You could 1) seek psychiatric help and work our your issues with your therapist, which I strongly recommend; 2) you could talk to people at UCLA about your strange beliefs and simply live with the consequences.
October 26th, 2002 at 7:02 pm
So you admit that you don’t have the courage of your convictions. That’s too bad. As for my “trendy and politically correct opinions” that’s very far from being the case. I get vastly more hate mail directly related to this site than you know.
The fact remains that you have the *privilege* of speaking freely whereas I would suffer severe consequences. It’s nice having the game rigged in your favor, isn’t it?
I don’t carry a video camera around with me (though perhaps I should start), so obviously I can’t prove that threats of physical violence are frequently used by leftists at UCLA to coerce conservatives, but there are also reports of this kind of thing in the news all the time, if you bother to look. For example, at Berkeley last year, a newspaper called the Cal Patriot was going to run a rather unfavorable story about MEChA, so MEChA broke in to their office and stole all of the newspapers before they could be released. No action was taken against them.
First, if you have questions about Ignatiev’s views, why don’t you ask Ignatiev? Why are you demanding that I speak for him? I don’t know him, haven’t read very much of his work, and generally don’t speak for others.
Fair enough I guess, but since you already told me that “most of what he says is true”, and since the premise of your site is very similar to his, I figured you might agree with at least some of what he says. Apparently this is not the case.
So anyway, it’s okay to talk about abolishing the white race, but it’s unacceptable to talk about abolishing the Jewish race or the black race? That’s a double standard. I’ll spare you my thoughts on the Holocaust, but suffice it to say that Jews have never been persecuted in America. They may have been persecuted in Germany, just as whites are now being persecuted in Zimbabwe and South Africa, but I don’t really see what difference that makes.
You seem shocked to hear that blacks actually do commit more crimes than whites. I get my stats from the Bureau of Justice. You can see the breakdown of homicide offenders here. You can look around on the BJS page for the stats on other crimes, or you can check out The Color Of Crime which has compiled this information using the Bureau of Justice numbers.
So there’s obviously a correlation between being black and being criminal. I’d say this is probably genetic, since there doesn’t seem to be a better explanation. Maybe it’s just a big coincidence? Or maybe when a black man commits murder or rape it’s because he’s been oppressed by the white man. Sure.
In any case, there’s much more of a connection between blackness and criminality than there is between whiteness and privilege. White skin confers no privileges whatsoever in America today. White people rank behind Jews and Asians in terms of wealth, and whites are an underrepresented minority at most Ivy League schools and at most of the UC schools (certainly at UCLA). In fact, white skin confers nothing but DISADVANTAGES, such as affirmative discrimination, having your culture and way of life constantly under assault in the name of “diversity”, not being able to speak up in your own interests for fear of being labelled a “racist”, and so forth.
And to the limited extent to which whites were ever privileged in America, it was perfectly justified: whites built the damn country! I wonder, do you complain about Japanese privilege in Japan or French privilege in France? People build a society for themselves, not for it to be taken over by foreigners who will only be hostile to them. If blacks or mestizos ever built anything that could compare with even the poorest white countries, they would be fully entitled to as much “privilege” as they wanted. But there I go with my crazy, racist notion that people should be able to reap what they sow.
That’s pseudoscientific gibberish dressed up with fancy words like “genetic” and DNA.
Again, as I explained above, you’re systematically confused.
It’s not pseudoscientific at all. A race is an extended family. For example, I share a common ancestor with my brother one generation ago, a common ancestor with my cousin two generations ago, a common ancestor with all Caucasians around 6,000 years ago, a common ancestor with Asians around 40,000 years ago, and a common ancestor with blacks around 150,000-200,000 years ago. Since mutations, genetic drift, etc. accumulates over time, a person is more closely related genetically to those of his own race than to others. Therefore each race will have its own unique traits. How hard is that to understand? Race has not been discredited by any means as a biological concept, it has merely been ignored by a number of ideologically-motivated “scientists” and sociologists who don’t like the concept of race since it doesn’t fit their agendas.
I link to these sites because I find them interesting and I think my audience will too. Is that really so complicated?
So your links include one page which attempts to destroy any form of racial solidarity among whites, and three overtly racist pages which seek to solidify racial solidarity among blacks and Asians. Another double standard.
And, yes, you did use racist, hateful language in your previous posts, including “you are a piece of filth” as your pseudo email address, including talk about “African and Jewish filth releasted into our culture” and so on. That plus your posting under a fake name and email address — because, as you’ve admitted freely, you’re afraid of the consequences of your beliefs becoming public — was enough to warrant deleting your posts.
If you don’t think that most Hollywood/TV material or rap music constitute filth, or that these are not produced almost exclusively by Jews and blacks, respectively, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Not true. You could 1) seek psychiatric help and work our your issues with your therapist, which I strongly recommend; 2) you could talk to people at UCLA about your strange beliefs and simply live with the consequences.
Hahaha. The classic “you don’t agree with me, therefore you’re crazy” line. Hilarious.
October 28th, 2002 at 11:14 am
I get my stats from the Bureau of Justice. You can see the breakdown of homicide offenders here. You can look around on the BJS page for the stats on other crimes, or you can check out The Color Of Crime which has compiled this information using the Bureau of Justice numbers.
Of course neither you nor the white supremacists you cite deal with the very complicated issue of how these statistics are compiled. Since you’re convinced that a person’s “race” can be read straigh off one or more phenotypic (even very weak and non-predictive ones) markers, you don’t
have to ask yourself very hard questions, which serves as a kind of self-reinforcement of your errant beliefs. For example, the “correlation” between race and criminality rests solely on witness testimony as to the “race” of *suspects* in crimes. The statistics are not corrected for convictions or acquittals; they are not corrected — nor does there seem a way to correct — for people’s misreading of phenotypic markers.
After all, black people sometimes pass as white and vice versa. In short, the statistics are meaningless; even if they were accurate, they do not establish causality, which is what your argument assumes. (To say nothing of the fact that criminality is *purely* a social construction.)
It’s not pseudoscientific at all. A race is an extended family. For example, I share a common ancestor with my brother one generation ago, a common ancestor with my cousin two generations ago, a common ancestor with all Caucasians around 6,000 years ago, a common ancestor with Asians around 40,000 years ago, and a common ancestor with blacks around 150,000-200,000 years ago. Since mutations, genetic drift, etc. accumulates over time, a person is more closely related genetically to those of his own race than to others. Therefore each race will have its own unique traits…
From an article about racism picked almost at random:
…whether or not eliminativism about race would achieve that goal [undermining racism], the first question concerns the truth of the thesis that races have no biological significance. Eliminativists have made two important points that should be recognized from the beginning. First, the phenotypic characters used to demarcate races–for example, the three “major races”, Caucasian, African, and Asian–neither have any intrinsic significance nor have been shown to correlate with characteristics of intrinsic significance. Second, although genetic and phenotypic studies have shown that certain alleles, dispositions to disease, and phenotypes occur at different frequencies in different racial groups, intraracial diversity is far more pronounced than interracial diversity. This latter point remains unchallenged. Painstaking research on human phenotypic variation has disclosed that, even with respect to the most evident marker of racial difference, skin color, there are profound differences within races…Moreover, the growing mass of data on human genetic variation down to the minuest details of DNA sequence makes it plain that so-called races differ only in the frequencies with which various alleles are found, often in complicated and bewildering ways. Jared Diamond has made the point vivid by considering the ways in which various choices of genetic characteristics would subvert our standard racial classifications (Philip Kitcher, “Race, Ethnicity, Biology, Culture”)
If you don’t think that most Hollywood/TV material or rap music constitute filth, or that these are not produced almost exclusively by Jews and blacks, respectively, then I don’t know what to tell you.
That’s right, because you have no argument or evidence or reasons for your little shards of racist propaganda. It’s a pretty good sign that you’re in the grips of an anti-reason ideology that you consistently have no backings or warrants for your claims. You have little but sheer assertion, and when someone refuses it by offering defeating reasons, you’re left to say pathetic things like that. It would be sad if it weren’t self-imposed.
Not true. You could 1) seek psychiatric help and work our your issues with your therapist, which I strongly recommend; 2) you could talk to people at UCLA about your strange beliefs and simply live with the consequences.
Hahaha. The classic “you don’t agree with me, therefore you’re crazy” line. Hilarious.
Which you could only misread because you believe anyone who speaks with a therapist is crazy. Read it again. Carefully. I didn’t say you were crazy; I don’t even think that, since it would be letting you off the hook too easily. You bemoaned the supposed fact that because society is so [whatever], you can’t talk publicly about your views, except to hide behind a false name.
I suggested two ways in which that “fact” is an illusion: first, you could talk to a therapist about your aberrant beliefs, which I recommended that you do. Not because I think you’re mentally ill, but because 1) therapists are typically not judgmental, 2) your communications to them are confidential, unless you threaten to hurt someone, and 3) they are often experienced with helping people escape ideologies, like white supremacy. I also suggested that you could simply share your views publicly with the people you encounter, and that the resulting social pressure — which you fear and seem to think would be undeserving when applied to you — might actually help you get over this nonsense.
The real point is that 1) this site is NOT a forum for people like you to spread their racist propaganda, and 2) you’ve had more opportunity here to share your views than you deserve, so unless you simply need the last word, you should probably not post here anymore.
November 11th, 2002 at 5:33 pm
Call me a last word freak if you want, and feel free to delete anything I post if you find my “propaganda” threatening to your worldview, but I thought I’d respond to just a couple of the ridiculous claims you made in your previous post.
1) “intraracial diversity is far more pronounced than interracial diversity”
Even if this is true (and I have certainly heard it before), so what? This does not mean that race doesn’t exist. For example, there is more variation within age groups than between age groups. Does that mean that age doesn’t exist? There’s more variation between among men than there is between men and women. Does that mean gender doesn’t exist? Of course not. And similarly, even if there is more variation among races than between them (and the genetic science is by no means clear on this, since determining genetic similarity is by no means as easy as one might think), it certainly does not mean that race doesn’t exist. I’d recommend this article.
2) You said: After all, black people sometimes pass as white and vice versa. In short, the statistics are meaningless; even if they were accurate, they do not establish causality, which is what your argument assumes. (To say nothing of the fact that criminality is *purely* a social construction.)
Hahahahahahahahaha. I couldn’t stop laughing when I first read that. Since when do black people pass as white and white people pass as black? This NEVER happens, except perhaps when dealing with people who are mixed white/black (in which case they usually look mixed, but might theoretically be able to pass themselves off as either purely white or purely black, but never both purely black and purely white for the same person). But anyway, let’s assume that it really is hard to distinguish between blacks and whites, as you claim. Then does that mean ALL statistics involving race are “meaningless”? And if it’s so hard to distinguish between blacks and whites, then how in the heck does “white privilege” work? Why don’t black people just pass themselves off as white in order to receive the same privileges you allege whites have, thereby defeating the entire system?
3) Okay, fine, you never said explicitly that I was crazy. But you were definitely implying that by responding to my arguments by telling me to see a therapist. But how about this: I’ll go see a therapist about my political beliefs when you go see an optometrist about your belief that blacks and whites look the same. Deal?
Now pardon me, but I’m going to go make sure that I’m not black. I mean, I have blue eyes, blond hair, and pasty white skin, but I wouldn’t want to read too much into such weak phenotypic markers. I might really just be a black person passing himself off as white.
February 6th, 2003 at 5:21 am
To “Rurik” (who refrains from using his name for fear of being spotted by anyone as a racist and anti-Semite),
The more I read the back-and-forth banter between you and Mr. Clark, the more horrified I am with the idea of people like you exist in my country, doing frightening things such as voting or breeding. Lets just look at some of the things you’ve said that should hit us with a red alert:
You wrote: “I’ll spare you my thoughts on the Holocaust, but suffice it to say that Jews have never been persecuted in America.”
As a white male, presumably middle-class and middle-aged, I am not surprised that you haven’t noticed or acknowledged anti-Semitism in the United States, but as a Jew I can say first-handedly that it does, and I am not partial to sappy victim stories. If I encountered anti-Semitism as a liberal-arts student living in large East Coast cities (presumably the most diverse locations in this country but also the ones harboring very large and economically self-reliant Jewish communities) and most recently in Ann Arbor (a town polarized by a heavy Jewish presence and a huge pan-Arabian influence from surrounding areas) then certainly this can be said to be true in places with a much lesser Jewish presence and a more provincial, white-dominated mind set. I hear people use the word Jew as a verb describing a cheating or swindling action. Let me also add, since you probably are not aware, that the word gyp, having a similar meaning, comes from the Gypsies (they were not very popular, much like the Jews, during the years of Nazi Germany). I have been denied jobs on account of being Jewish, I have been forbidden from talking to people in my high school because their parents found out I was from Israel, and I have heard random people (sales associates, clerks, waiters) mumble hateful speech toward Jews, or toward myself on account of being Jewish. During McCarthyism, Jews, especially those in the entertainment industry, were heavily persecuted. The blacklist was influenced by echoes of anti-Semitic propaganda about a Jewish plot for Bolshevik world take-over. There is an astonishing presence of prejudice in America, and I would not say that the Jews have it the worst, but your boisterous claim that they have never been persecuted in America is, once again, ignorant and unsubstantiated.
You: “They may have been persecuted in Germany, just as whites are now being persecuted in Zimbabwe and South Africa, but I don’t really see what difference that makes.”
There is no comparison between what happened to the Jews (not to mention homosexuals) under Hitler’s fascist regime (I do not wish to synonymise Nazi Europe with Germany, there were plenty of non-German contributors, for example, Vichy, France) and what is now going on in South Africa. If post-Apartheid racial tension that results from an overwhelmingly high crime-rate and a dysfunctional government constitutes a persecution of the whites, then you have a little work to do on perspective. The problem of South Africa is a product of the whites, not of the blacks, and there is anything but racial persecution (chaos, yes) if for no other reason that there is no competent governing entity to enforce a racist politics. Do me a favor and read a few books on the Holocaust before you make blatant statements belittling the profundity of the term.
You: “If you don’t think that most Hollywood/TV material or rap music constitute filth, or that these are not produced almost exclusively by Jews and blacks, respectively, then I don’t know what to tell you.”
This is only your opinion, so quit proselytizing your inane value system to the rest of us with your if you dont think, dot dot dot threats. That said, you are entitled to your opinions - but you cannot demand that we agree that rap music is filth. Lets avoid a deep debate of the meaning of filth - you are saying rap music does not deserve anyone’s respect as a legitimate art form. Wrong. If you ever read or listened to the lyrics of rap music, they are highly sensational, socio-political and cultural, much like lyrics from Weimar-era cabarets and, believe it or not, from Classical Greece. In fact, the revival of the spoken word and the faith in the power of expression through music is something that I find refreshing in rap that I think has stagnated in recent music, at least noticeably since the 1960s and 1970s. Your statement about rap is offensive and ignorant, and I suggest that you take sometime to learn what the word rap stands for, as opposed to forming your judgments based on two minutes of MTV or the opinions of your colleagues and friends, who by association, are probably as ignorant and provincial as you (am I being presumptuous or do you have a thorough collection of rap recordings which you keep for critical reference?).
Secondly, since when is rap music produced by the Jews? I wouldnt say it never happened, I am aware of a few recordings of Jewish rappers who record Hebrew politically-conscious music, but overall it is not a Jewish genre. It is, however, a black and Latino genre; you are correct in that assertion, sparing a few iconic white exceptions. That said, I do not understand your point. We already established that your opinion of rap music is myopic and belligerent (I would even say hateful) and therefore irrelevant (I might be busting your bubble, but it is not uncommon for middle-aged boring white men to dislike rap. Weve all seen that play already). The blacks, if I may use the term so loosely to describe anyone with genetic roots in Middle Africa (I do not like the term African-American because I have Moroccan and Egyptian blood but I am in no phenotypic way black) happen to have common collective characteristics. This is a very dangerous statement, I realize, but I am allowing myself to say it insofar as we examine these characteristics and understand they have exceptions, just as generalizations about males and females have exceptions, or generalizations about anyone else would have exceptions). For instance, it is agreed that black culture has produced, historically, a legacy of unique vocal prowess. This is obvious in the legendary singers that this century (and country, largely) has discovered, and I shall spare you the name-dropping, but also in famous speakers MLK, Jr., Maya Angelou, Nelson Mandela. This oral heritage is a rich aspect of black culture, insofar as there is any such thing, and rap is a perfect example of a contemporary proliferation of aural expression.
You: “You seem shocked to hear that blacks actually do commit more crimes than whites. I get my stats from the Bureau of Justice. You can see the breakdown of homicide offenders here. You can look around on the BJS page for the stats on other crimes, or you can check out The Color Of Crime which has compiled this information using the Bureau of Justice numbers.”
We all know about the crime statistics. No, really, we do. What people like you need to remember is that these statistics are nothing more and nothing less than a perfect reflection, and reciprocity, of a political economics that is controlled by the virtuous (to borrow a term from Dan Savage), that is, people such as yourself not the least of which is white. Let me remind you that blacks first came to this country as slaves. Oh no, wait, thats a lie. Blacks were brutally uprooted from their homes in Africa, treated like cattle and put on crowded ships, raped, dumped if they were sick (and thus a threat to the rest of the livestock) and thrown in a newly discovered country, meted and sold and told to grow fucking cotton on rich white-ass motherfuckers plantations! Let me also remind you that there passed a long time before blacks were allowed to vote, own property, enter politics, use the same restrooms as whites (perhaps non-blacks is a better term in this case) or sit in the front of the bus. Meanwhile, we still have not had a black president, and our current presidency is trying to dispatch affirmative action. Why? Because our country is controlled by wealthy, conservative, Christian, pseudo-Democratic white males. For instance, why are American public schools (I especially mean inner-city secondary schools) so under-funded and horribly run? How is it that the wealthiest, most resourceful nation in the world cannot provide a decent high school education to every single member of its comparatively small population? Again, a corrupt political economics stinks matters up, on the levels of the metropolis, the state, and the federal government alike. American drugs laws, to name another example, are blatantly racist, which perpetrates a victimization of people in a social lock that is created by those laws. The penalties for crack-cocaine are far more severe than the penalties for cocaine; crack is a drug that appears exclusively in the ghettos of the impoverished city sectors, and therefore most of the time in black hands, whereas cocaine is the drug of choice of many entertainers, fashioners, and in short, rich folk. Another example is Marijuana. There are copious examples of anti-marijuana campaigns, reflected in the harsh laws stipulated against marijuana use and sale that are, for lack of a better word, wrong. They advertise lies. Marijuana is consumed in astonishing amounts in the States, yet the cases of THC-induced car accidents are nil. Not so much can be said for alcohol, the number one killer in the United States. Also, THC has been medically documented by repeated experimentation to be less harmful than alcohol (it actually has certain somatic benefits, such as stimulated appetite (which is why it is prescribed to cancer patients), relief of nausea, and the relief of pain, stress and ocular tension), while alcohol causes a loss of inhibition and sound judgment, exacerbation of violent tendencies, severe liver damage, visible skin degeneration and brain cell death. However, since the Martini is the drug of choice for the rich white man, these silly statistics will continue to exist unnoticed. Face it, Rurik, your white ass has been in charge since this country came into being. Let me remind you that the original promise behind the formation of this nation is quite beautiful: we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Dont be a party pooper. The key idea is self-evident. Self-evident. Why, then, am I having to explain this to you?
–
Adam Alalouf
University of Michigan